1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrElectrician. Show MrElectrician's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/10/2011 8:24 PM EDT

    No doubt this will do little to squelch the fires that have popped up all week about Stamkos not wanting to play in Tampa, the Lightning not being able to afford to keep him and they will have to trade him to either Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Vancouver, San Jose, Nashville or perhaps even Atlanta, for that matter. Obviously that’s a bit of hyperbole, but you get my point because there are certain internet sites that stop refusing to fuel those fires no matter how many answers I provide on www.twitter.com/erlendssontrib" title="Twitter ">Twitter to refute every one of those rumors. While the hysteria of what has become known as #STAMMERGEDDON on twitter has simmered down in the past few days, there is still a flicker burning just waiting for the next part of gasoline to be thrown onto the flame.

    Having said that, here is what Steve Yzerman had to say today regarding the discussions involving Stamkos:

    “We are talking about things, and it’s not just a simple contract,’’ Yzerman said. “This is an important player and in light of everything that has happened over the last week, we are making progress. I expect to, and I’m optimistic we will get him signed and both parties are continuing to work towards that.

    The above is from the Tampa Tribune.

     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonicator. Show Olsonicator's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/10/2011 8:28 PM EDT

    Dunno whats up with the formatting...

    That's a deep question, NAS. Before I give my answer, understand that it hinges on the tricky relationship between selling tickets and winning hockey games. I am going to argue that there is a conflict of interest between winning a Stanley cup and being a competitive, attractive, and marketable hockey team. Professional organizations often lose sight of the difference between these two objectives when it comes to signing talented players that fans have grown to love (like Stamkos). o.k. Here it goes.

    From a business perspective, the players that sell the most tickets and generate the most money deserve to be paid the most, I understand that this is the reality of professional sports. From a business perspective, Stamkos should be compensated like the other top players in the league because his flashy goal-scoring ability is highly marketable. The fans love him; he's young, good-looking, and can win a scoring title. It doesn't appear that a 50 goal scorer could ever be the reason a team doesn't win the cup.

    Now, my argument isn't, “Stamkos is the reason that they lost”. My argument is that high-end goal scoring isn't the best indicator of winning games, and if your team commits a substantial % of the salary cap to house that high-end scorer, you could be caught with your eye on the business and not on the big trophy. When you work with a limited budget, as all teams are, your largest investments had better be ones that translate to post-season success. 

    The saber-metrics guys have come into hockey, and they have brought a suitcase of useful metrics for determining a players overall contribution to winning. Mainly, scoring chance +/- and Corsi +/- have revolutionized how teams look at which plays influence a game the most. The fact is, a players traditional +/- isn't an adequate way to evaluate contributions. This is because the league average goals/game is only around ~2.5; goals just don't happen enough in NHL games to be a good barometer. For example, Corsi +/- addresses this issue by looking at all of the types of plays that correlate to goals rather than goals itself. Teams will log the differential between shots from the slot, blocked shots from the slot, missed shots from the slot, etc. Teams sometimes adjust their equation for quality of opponents on the ice during each shift.

    I'm just scratching the surface of the new metrics being used. Teams look at everything now; they'll log what spot the the puck was when a player gets on the ice for a shift, and where the puck was when he get off the ice. If that player tends to get on the ice in the defensive zone and quickly transitions it into the offensive zone, that player is assigned credited for doing so. If a player gets on the ice with bad teammates, and still transitions the puck, some teams will assigned credit proportional to how bad his teammates were.

    Now, you asked me which players deserve to be paid the most, so I'll answer it:     Pay the players that have regularly, and predictably made the greatest contributions to winning hockey games in both the regular season and the post-season. Understand that total points and age is not the full story on a players relative value.

    Obviously, these arguments always take place in a vacuum, as scouting and savy contracts could theoretically negate/compensate for bad contract. However, if I was in charge and building a team, I would commit money to grittier players, two-way players, especially at the forward position. I think the most valuable players are usually in the conversation for the Selke award, guys like Datsyuk, Kesler, Toews. They all have appeared in the top 20 players in the regular season in on-ice Corsi, and the top 10 in the playoffs. They get better when the stakes matter. 

    At minimum, your highest paid player should have a net positive impact when he gets on the ice. But the fact is, Stamkos just doesn't. Yes, he scores a lot of goals, but his team doesn't get better when he is on the ice.

    As far as pure goal scorers are concerned, only Ovechkin deserves what he's getting. Personally, if I were Tampa bay, I would consider moving him to wing.

    I lost some steam there at the end there, but I have a hockey game tonight and I need to stretch out. End rant.


    (interesting Q&A) http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=834

     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/10/2011 9:17 PM EDT

    Thanks for that reply, OC.  It gives a different perspective on salaries.  I agree that those who do the most to secure the victory should be highly paid, but in professional sports, people pay for excitement.  Goals and fights are the two main reasons people go to hockey games.  Stamkos certainly ain't fighting anytime soon, but he certainly puts butts in the seats.

     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pats5402. Show Pats5402's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/10/2011 11:02 PM EDT

    "Thanks for that reply, OC.  It gives a different perspective on salaries.  I agree that those who do the most to secure the victory should be highly paid, but in professional sports, people pay for excitement.  Goals and fights are the two main reasons people go to hockey games.  Stamkos certainly ain't fighting anytime soon, but he certainly puts butts in the seats."


    What fighter gets paid the big bucks for fighting? Yea Chara and Lucic you could say are fighters but they dont get paid to fight. They get paid for their high level of hockey skill. Hockey players are paid for their hockey skill not fighting. (If their hockey skill is fighting such as Thorton then they will make minimum NHL salary.) 
     

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/10/2011 11:39 PM EDT

    "The saber-metrics guys have come into hockey, and they have brought a suitcase of useful metrics for determining a players overall contribution to winning. Mainly, scoring chance +/- and Corsi +/- have revolutionized how teams look at which plays influence a game the most. The fact is, a players traditional +/- isn't an adequate way to evaluate contributions. This is because the league average goals/game is only around ~2.5; goals just don't happen enough in NHL games to be a good barometer. For example, Corsi +/- addresses this issue by looking at all of the types of plays that correlate to goals rather than goals itself."


    This makes allot of sense it's a "Billy Bean Money Ball" esque metric so to speak but If I were not an arm chair GM and an actual GM (yes I know chuckles) I would be calling Yzerman to either make a trade or let him know I'm prepared to give up all those draft picks with an offer sheet. At which time I think Steve would tell me go ahead I'll match it.

    When Stamkos truly grows into his body, like Seguin, he will be an absolute terror and Yzerman would be maligned for a long time for letting him go.
     

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bandgbleeder. Show bandgbleeder's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 12:04 AM EDT

    Horse mucky. Stamkos is as one dimensional as Phil Kessel, he's better at it, but still one dimensional.

    Fo% 46.5
    He had less hits than Marchand who is smaller and played less games.
    In 38 games Kampfer had almost twice as many blocked shots as Stamkos did in 82.
    In the playoffs in 18 games Stamkos scored 6 goals, Joel Ward in 12 scored seven.

    Sorry, no Steve should not be the highest paid player in the NHL.

    Some other interesting points here: http://pucksage.com/?p=545

    In Response to Re: Stamkos asked for a trade:
    "who isn't injured in any visible way, is relatively unspectacular with the championship on the line." Ols, You have to be kidding me 119 goals in 3 season at 21 years young and your going to bring up his +/- ? If Stamkos gets under 8M a year then he should fire his agent. The only reason he has gotten beat up by a team like Boston because naturally he hasn't been able to keep the weight on throughout the season that he try's to gain every off season.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin
     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonicator. Show Olsonicator's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 12:25 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Stamkos asked for a trade:
     When Stamkos truly grows into his body, like Seguin, he will be an absolute terror and Yzerman would be maligned for a long time for letting him go.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin



    Yeah, he's likely going to be a better at 25 than he will at 21. I would never say the book has been written on Stamkos. But I think in principle, you shouldn't give max deals/long duration to a player missing critical parts of his game, especially a #1 center who should be the most important player on the team. 

    if you give him the most amount of money you can make, what incentive does he have to round-out his game? I dunno, if he played with more passion/aggression like I see from sid/ovi, I'd feel that it's worth the risk. But with those players, the fire is clearly burning within... Stamkos hasn't proven that yet.

    I feel badly for Yzerman, It's a tough situation with the cap space he has, and he's done a good job so far putting pieces together, but I think he's gonna get hosed on this one.



    *BtW
    if anyone is curious, http://www.behindthenet.ca/ logs all the advanced metrics for every game.. regular season and post season. Just navigate to the player breakdown and make sure you have Corsi tracking enabled in the upper right-hand corner. (On-ice corsi is what you are looking fo;  relative corsi normalized). Its confusing at first, but all of the stats are explained. You can sort by any kind of metric you want. I'm still a rookie with it all, but it's really interesting stuff. Ask around/use google, and you'll see that GMs are using these types of metrics to evaluate their players.



    looking at the bruins stats, you realize how ffing nasty the Krejci Lucic Horton line was generating net positive plays.



     

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 12:07 PM EDT

    Stamkos is very good but not a dominant player yet.  If TO was offering me the package that Wheat says they are, I would take it in an instant.  A huge cap hit is hard to work with.  For me very few deserve it, Crosby and Chara do, maybe Ovechkin.
     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from JYaso. Show JYaso's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 2:30 PM EDT

    www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=00c372e09d476393c3b46f48ac7aaa14&plckUserId=00c372e09d476393c3b46f48ac7aaa14">
    Posts: 6121
    First: 12/30/2009
    Last: 7/10/2011
    In Response to Re: Stamkos asked for a trade:
    After the great job Steve Yzerman did this past season, it's impossible to believe he won't get Stamkos signed.
    Posted by felixwas


    After TB lost to Boston, the media got up off their knees from in front of him.

    LOL--- I was thinking the same thing!
     

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 2:42 PM EDT

    I don't know about the scientism of "advanced" stats.  Moneyball never made sense to me.  I mean, the best sports cliche is that if a hitter only fails 65% of the time, he's a world class player.  But series are won by players who are capable of soaring highs even though they're balanced out by lows, especially when power's involved.  You get a Mike Lowell on a hot streak and I'd rather have him than a Matt Holliday.  Moneyball's all about minimizing risk, but you don't win championships in sport without a few leaps of faith.

    A lot of stats are just bass ackward ways of justifying how much you will or won't pay a guy.  And something to talk about while you're waiting for the next pint.  I love the idea of VORP, for example, but I'm not sure it can really be quantified that effectively.
     

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 2:54 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Stamkos asked for a trade:
    Horse mucky.  In 38 games Kampfer had almost twice as many blocked shots as Stamkos did in 82. In the playoffs in 18 games Stamkos scored 6 goals, Joel Ward in 12 scored seven. Posted by bandgbleeder


    Ok I think I get what horse mucky is, comparing a defenseman's (kampfer) blocked shot totals to a forwards (Stamkos), comparing Joel Ward who is 30 years old whom also has had more playoff experience to a very young player who just barely turned 21. Is that what horse mucky means ? 

    And oh I never ever mentioned that Stamkos should be the highest paid player or forward for that matter. Good luck with your shovel Tongue out
     

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 3:01 PM EDT

    "The saber-metrics guys have come into hockey, and they have brought a suitcase of useful metrics for determining a players overall contribution to winning. Mainly, scoring chance +/- and Corsi +/- "

    Book, I was only comparing MoneyBall to what some NHL GMs might use ^above^. I don't think there the same or could be used across all sports (you well know I don't think drafts are the same in different sports). Olsonic eluded to what he might use or what other GMs maybe using when going into contract negotiations.

    I for one would not use behindthenet as an NHL GM but I would use MoneyBall if I were a baseball GM but only for a very small market team like Oakland or San Diego not so much if I were Theo or Cashman.
     

  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 3:05 PM EDT

    As SanDog just said, those stats that you list are completely silly.  However, the difference between good, really good and great in hockey is slim.  Lesser players often outplay stars.  Only a few truly dominate games consistently, and Stamkos isn't one of those yet.  He's not even the best player on his own team.

    In Response to Re: Stamkos asked for a trade:
    Horse mucky. Stamkos is as one dimensional as Phil Kessel, he's better at it, but still one dimensional. Fo% 46.5 He had less hits than Marchand who is smaller and played less games. In 38 games Kampfer had almost twice as many blocked shots as Stamkos did in 82. In the playoffs in 18 games Stamkos scored 6 goals, Joel Ward in 12 scored seven. Sorry, no Steve should not be the highest paid player in the NHL. Some other interesting points here: http://pucksage.com/?p=545 In Response to Re: Stamkos asked for a trade :
    Posted by bandgbleeder

     

  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from thedauber1. Show thedauber1's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 3:30 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Stamkos asked for a trade:
    As SanDog just said, those stats that you list are completely silly.  However, the difference between good, really good and great in hockey is slim.  Lesser players often outplay stars.  Only a few truly dominate games consistently, and Stamkos isn't one of those yet.  He's not even the best player on his own team. In Response to Re: Stamkos asked for a trade :
    Posted by OatesCam


    ya i'm going to go ahead and disagree with that
     

  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonicator. Show Olsonicator's posts

    Re: Stamkos asked for a trade

    posted at 7/11/2011 5:27 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Stamkos asked for a trade:
    I for one would not use behindthenet as an NHL GM but I would use MoneyBall if I were a baseball GM but only for a very small market team like Oakland or San Diego not so much if I were Theo or Cashman.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin




    Oh for sure, they would never leave it up to a third party website. Each team has their own standards for evaluating players, and large scouting departments make independent evaluations that are passed on to the management. These evaluations have gotten a hell of a lot more complicated than they used to be. What behindthenet.ca does, is give you a window into the world that NHL scouts use to evaluate players.

    Another thing I need to argue with is the chages of "scientism" represented by book-boy. Surely, some statistics are more meaningful than others, and it's possible that stats will never truely tell the story, but the entire objective of using statistics is to predict the future with greater accuracy. To the extent that these statistics are in improvement over the traditional stats (such as +/-), teams will use them to evaluate players.


    "If you have good reasons for what you believe, your beliefs are part of the general purview of scientific rationale. We don't have to distinguish between hard-science and soft-science, this includes history, this includes all modes of intellectual discourse where people honestly represent the state of the evidence, and seek evidence." - Sam Harris