-Vintage Canuck-

[Signing] Capitals re-sign Tom Wilson

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

First off with this bolded part, lol? Lets let this guy play more than 2 seasons before we say he's on Tanev's level defensively. Being a passenger to Carlson is easier than playing with the revolving door of D-men we have going on.

 

To be fair those are mostly UFA signings for Benning versus primarily re-signs for Washington. Then you gotta factor in Vancouver is garbage right now. No real defending the Beagle or Eriksson deals but as UFAs they are almost always overpaid. Especially since like I said, we're garbage.

 

Hutton deal looked pretty solid until his play fell off a cliff. Guess him and Green don't vibe together or something, under Willie D Hutton looked incredibly promising. He has more 20 point seasons than Kempny has 55+ games played seasons. Hell, Hutton has more NHL seasons under his belt than Kempny. But it is true the deal looks pretty bad now. 

I hear ya.. 

 

Followed your thought untill you started comparing Hutton to Kempny. 

 

Kempny was the most recent 1st pair shut down Dman on Cup winning team. Hutton is trying to make canucks as 7D.  

 

Let's discuss Tanev Kempny  thru out the year.. watch Caps games. You will be impressed with his game... 2.5 per for 4 years.. he's.  27 yrs old..  best deal in the NHL for the next 4 years... he was Ufa.  If he signed 1 year deal he'd get 5+ mill per, long term next season as UFA.. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by WHL rocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, coryberg said:

Lucic 2.0

This might turn out worse. At least Lucic had a 60 point season in the past to somewhat justify. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WHL rocks said:

(Kempny is pretty much a Tanev)

Credibility

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horvat's contract just keeps looking better and better and......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual high drama from the twitterverse  - guys like Filipovic pretending to have 'analyzed' this 'horrible' deal.

 

5.1 milllion may seem absurd to people who look no further than 35 points - but ironically, the point of being 'analytical' is to ask yourself why a Stanley Cup Championship team would value him like this. 

 

Look at the facts / his objective outcomes - and then assess the contract.

 

First of all - when it really counted - 15 points in 21 playoff games - 5th in ice time among forwards.  You absolutely can't gaze at regular season production alone, when a player breaks out like this in a Cup run.

 

250 hits last year = pays the physical price, that more and more is being recognized as value to be compensated in the NHL.  Sorry analytics nerds - grit and physicality still has value in the modern NHL - and in fact, in the form of a big, physical, mobile guy, that rare skillset is valued even more highly.

 

Washington's 3rd leading penalty killer among forwards - probably a surprise to 'analysts' who tend to ironically pigeon hole players like this.

 

40 takeaways - and another 18 in the playoffs.  He's not vacant without the puck - but instead plays a defensive forward role.

 

But, but his underlying numbers weren't great.   Well neither were Ovechkin's.  They both had high ozone starts and corsis around break even, but the 'possession' numbers don't necessarily tell the goal metric story.  That he's utilized as a penalty killer also doesn't mesh with what his cherry-picked 'possession' numbers would look like to a surface 'analytiz' observer, so clearly there's more there than meets the eye.

3.3 on ice goals for per 60 = 2nd among Caps forwards (2.8 against).

 

I don't agree with the chorus of dramatists that are blowing head gaskets over this deal.

 

Is 5.1 an unusually high cap hit for a player that seems to have middle six production?  Yes.  Are there other reasons they value him?  Clearly.

The NHL is getting less and less simplistic - less and less conventional around player values - and arguably that is because players who contribute in less simplistic ways than production alone are being recognized for the additional value they bring.

Clearly NHL teams recognizing this isn't going away anytime soon - so 'analyticz' pretenders would do well to catch up to the trend and the reasoning - or at least wonder if their reductive hysteria isn't as superiorly informed as they perceive.

Edited by oldnews
  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Horvat's contract just keeps looking better and better and......

Completely different player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WHL rocks said:

He opens up the ice for OV and Kuzie on the 1st line. 

 

Keeps the opposing team honest and is legit top tier power forward. Huge role in Caps Cup win. 

 

1st unit PK. 

 

All but 2 of his points came on even strength. 

 

Good deal and term when you factor in his age and his development curve along with everything he brings as a team mate. 

 

Would love Virtanen to get close to Wilson level one day.  

 

 

I agree he’s valuable, just not over 5 million a season valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mpt said:

I agree he’s valuable, just not over 5 million a season valuable.

Say 2 years of his RFA at 4 mill. Then he'd be UFA and get offered big money.. north of 6 mill on long term deal. . 

 

They got 4 years of ufa from him at 5 mill. Pretty good when you consider he's 24, hitting his prime and signed thru out hiside best years. He's only going to get better.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldnews said:

The usual high drama from the twitterverse  - guys like Filipovic pretending to have 'analyzed' this 'horrible' deal.

 

5.1 milllion may seem absurd to people who look no further than 35 points - but ironically, the point of being 'analytical' is to ask yourself why a Stanley Cup Championship team would value him like this. 

 

Look at the facts / his objective outcomes - and then assess the contract.

 

First of all - when it really counted - 15 points in 21 playoff games - 5th in ice time among forwards.  You absolutely can't gaze at regular season production alone, when a player breaks out like this in a Cup run.

 

250 hits last year = pays the physical price, that more and more is being recognized as value to be compensated in the NHL.  Sorry analytics nerds - grit and physicality still has value in the modern NHL - and in fact, in the form of a big, physical, mobile guy, that rare skillset is valued even more highly.

 

Washington's 3rd leading penalty killer among forwards - probably a surprise to 'analysts' who tend to ironically pigeon hole players like this.

 

40 takeaways - and another 18 in the playoffs.  He's not vacant without the puck - but instead plays a defensive forward role.

 

But, but his underlying numbers weren't great.   Well neither were Ovechkin's.  They both had high ozone starts and corsis around break even, but the 'possession' numbers don't necessarily tell the goal metric story.  That he's utilized as a penalty killer also doesn't mesh with his 'possession' numbers would look like to a surface 'analytiz' observer, so clearly there's more there than meets the eye.

3.3 on ice goals for per 60 = 2nd among Caps forwards (2.8 against).

 

I don't agree with the chorus of dramatists that are blowing head gaskets over this deal.

 

Is 5.1 an unusually high cap hit for a player that seems to have middle six production?  Yes.  Are there other reasons they value him?  Clearly.

The NHL is getting less and less simplistic - less and less conventional around player values - and arguably that is because players who contribute in less simplistic ways than production alone are being recognized for the additional value they bring.

Clearly NHL teams recognizing this isn't going away anytime soon - so 'analyticz' pretenders would do well to catch up to the trend and the reasoning - or at least wonder if their reductive hysteria isn't as superiorly informed as they perceive.

Exactly this.

 

While the Caps so-called "possession numbers" were terrible, those so-called possession stats being cited are totally meaningless  In fact, in a Washington Post article written before the playoffs addressed precisely both the Caps "fan-alytic" possession stats and the supposedly "unsustainably" high shooting percentage (they were among the top in the league): it was a calculated general strategy where the team stressed shot/chance quality over quantity, something which Corsi numbers do not differentiate from.

 

From an eye-test POV, that was somewhat maddening to watch at points, as it sometimes meant that the Caps would pass the puck more than one too many times, but there's no denying that the team and coaching staff were completely unconcerned about the outside perception that they weren't a strong puck-possession team.

Edited by Undrafted
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Undrafted said:

Exactly this.

 

While the Caps so-called "possession numbers" were terrible, those so-called possession stats being cited are totally meaningless  In fact, in a Washington Post article written before the playoffs precisely both the Caps "fan-alytic" possession stats and the supposedly "unsustainably" high shooting percentage (they were among the top in the league): it was a calculated general strategy where the team stressed shot/chance quality over quantity, something which Corsi numbers do not differentiate from.

 

From an eye-test POV, that was somewhat maddening to watch at points, as it sometimes meant that the Caps would pass the puck more than one too many times, but there's no denying that the team and coaching staff were completely unconcerned about the outside perception that they weren't a strong puck-possession team.

And this gets to the heart of the limits of isolating particular metrics - and the irony of pseudo-analtyics that very often and routinely lack a more integrative perspective.

 

"Possession" metrics don't really measure possession - they measure shot attempt differentials.

 

"Possession" metrics - as useful as they can be when taken in context, can be extremely misleading (actually carry negative analytical value) when isolated or cherry-picked.

In the end goal metrics are what determine wins and losses - and although teams that tend to outshoot their opponents also tend to win more frequently, it is nevertheless not that simple.

 

An excellent example of failed analytics in this sense is the hopelessly oversimplified attempts to reduce a player like Gudbranson look like a 'horrible possession player'.

Not only do pseudo-analyticz types not really look at shot differentials in context - ie relative to ozone/dzone starts, quality of competition - but they also completely elect to ignore his goal metrics - something that is very important in the end, and as the larger case of the Washington Capitals evidences, corsi can be highly misleading.

 

Gudbranson = high defensive zone starts, strong quality of competition (matchup minutes) - and yet allowed only 2.0 goals against per 60 5on5 - the lowest of any regular Canuck defenseman.   The only other regular skater in that range was Sutter (1.9) - an elite shutdown forward in comparably hard minutes.  People that attempt to railroad these types of players with simpleton takes on 'possession' numbers are specifically not analytcal - they're actually counter-analytical.

  • Hydration 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, WHL rocks said:

Say 2 years of his RFA at 4 mill. Then he'd be UFA and get offered big money.. north of 6 mill on long term deal. . 

 

They got 4 years of ufa from him at 5 mill. Pretty good when you consider he's 24, hitting his prime and signed thru out hiside best years. He's only going to get better.. 

 

Maybe, or maybe he’s hit his peak.  These long term contracts on players that have had one good season are always a risk.  We’ll find out in a few years whether or not its a good contract or a disaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This deal is a combination of potential, age, playoff production and future opportunities. While I do think it’s a little high in value he did produce at a 71% ppg rate in the playoffs. Now he put up that pace playing on the number one line which he wasn’t doing during the season. They clearly plan on moving him to the top line with Ovi and hope his ppg % remains close to what it was in the playoffs. If it does that turns into a 58ish point season along with everything else this guy brings. It’s a big gamble but if the points are there this deal should be alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, oldnews said:

And this gets to the heart of the limits of isolating particular metrics - and the irony of pseudo-analtyics that very often and routinely lack a more integrative perspective.

 

"Possession" metrics don't really measure possession - they measure shot attempt differentials.

 

"Possession" metrics - as useful as they can be when taken in context, can be extremely misleading (actually carry negative analytical value) when isolated or cherry-picked.

In the end goal metrics are what determine wins and losses - and although teams that tend to outshoot their opponents also tend to win more frequently, it is nevertheless not that simple.

 

An excellent example of failed analytics in this sense is the hopelessly oversimplified attempts to reduce a player like Gudbranson look like a 'horrible possession player'.

Not only do pseudo-analyticz types not really look at shot differentials in context - ie relative to ozone/dzone starts, quality of competition - but they also completely elect to ignore his goal metrics - something that is very important in the end, and as the larger case of the Washington Capitals evidences, corsi can be highly misleading.

 

Gudbranson = high defensive zone starts, strong quality of competition (matchup minutes) - and yet allowed only 2.0 goals against per 60 5on5 - the lowest of any regular Canuck defenseman.   The only other regular skater in that range was Sutter (1.9) - an elite shutdown forward in comparably hard minutes.  People that attempt to railroad these types of players with simpleton takes on 'possession' numbers are specifically not analytcal - they're actually counter-analytical.

I think there needs to be a major distinction between what actual teams' analytics departments use and the 'fan-altyic' numbers bandied about by certain columnists and fan sites.  There is not a single team that uses Corsi-based numbers in their analytics departments, not even those whose management leans heavily on analytics like AZ and TOR. 

 

I even remember an intermission interview at a game in AZ where Murph had Chayka on as a guest and Murph asked whether things like Corsi should be more front and centre as a general statistic as opposed to +/- (which Murph only used as an example).  Chayka kinda smirked at the mention of Corsi and diplomatically said that they used 'more sophisticated metrics' than Corsi but agreed that compared to +/-, Corsi was probably more valuable but it was clear in his reaction that he didn't think that was saying much.

 

Corsi was originally intended as a quick, crude approximation of team puck possession based on the idea that if you were shooting the puck, it meant your team had the puck in the offensive zone.  These days, modern analytics departments don't need an approximation of puck possession; they have the means to measure possession precisely.

 

Dismissing Corsi-based stats isn't taking an 'anti-analytics' stance--it's recognizing the worthlessness of a certain class of statistic.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Western Red said:

Except, he's a 1st liner now. Have you been following.. hockey?

Of course I watched him perform, and I don't doubt that Wilson has some seriously enticing abilities and can hold his own on higher lines, but this is just the first year we've seen him put it all together like this. I just think Caps management jumped the gun with a long-term deal. Had they worked out something close to $4M for 1-2 years, it would have simply looked better to me. It's good for the team's cap situation over this short cup window, while still giving a nice pay raise to Wilson with the promise of a better deal in the future. Saying "Jumping Jesus Christ!" was admittedly hyperbolic on my part, but a $3M jump in salary is always eye-catching.

 

That said, Wilson is cashing in while things are on the upswing, as he should, so I'm glad he 's getting rewarded for his play, and I'll be glad for the Caps if this pays off and he cements himself in the top 6 for good. Playoff hockey is more interesting with him in the mix, anyway (barring the occasional questionable hit)

Edited by Neil HD
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WHL rocks said:

Completely different player. 

Oh, totally agree but Wilson is older and does not play the minutes Horvar does or is near as important.   Wilson is a more developed but slower version of Virtanen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Oh, totally agree but Wilson is older and does not play the minutes Horvar does or is near as important.   Wilson is a more developed but slower version of Virtanen. 

Disagree. Wilson actually uses his size to make space and intimidate. He is also a pretty solid established fighter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Undrafted said:

If that's your only impression of what Wilson brings to the table, then you don't really know the kind of player he is

It isn't my only impression. He can finish and he makes room for his teammates out on the ice.

 

He is a force out there, but as a Canucks fan I'm happy that there is a player in Gudbranson on this team, who manhandled him after he was essentially mugged by Wilson. 

 

Washington is doing a decent job of keeping the band together. 

 

 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, RRypien37 said:

Disagree. Wilson actually uses his size to make space and intimidate. He is also a pretty solid established fighter. 

And I said he didn’t?   He is far less valuable to his team than Horvat is to Vancouver.   

Edited by Rob_Zepp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

And I said he didn’t?   He is far less valuable to his team than Horvat is to Vancouver.   

Sorry I meant in regards to Wilson vs Virtanen. Horvat is infinitely more value than Wilson of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.