The_Rocket
-
Posts
1,572 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by The_Rocket
-
-
4 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:
Did they really grade Petey and Hughes's contracts before they've even been finished?
Tells me all I need to know about this article.
Bingo
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:
Defensive defensemen are criminally underappreciated these days, but are the backbone of successful playoff teams.
No doubt. All you have to do is look at the Hamhuis 2011 playoff injury to understand how vital these guys can be
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, JM_ said:funny thing is, one of the biggest fancy stats groups Evolving Hockey, put Poolmans appropriate next deal value at 2.4 mil.
In addition to my Athletic subscription, I also have an Evolving Hockey subscription.
all I hear on Twitter is that poolman sucks analytically, and he was only projected to get a league minimum deal (guys like Drance, Blake Price, Matt sekeras, etc say this).
then, I go on evolving hockey, and they project a middle class contract, and have analytics that show he is good defensively.
who am I to believe, the radio hosts taking out their as***s for 3 hours a day, or a website which simply out puts results, not opinions. Hmmmmmmm
-
2
-
2
-
5
-
58 minutes ago, King Heffy said:
Drance is an analytics dweeb who wouldn't know a puck if it hit him in the face. His opinion has precisely zero value.
Funny thing is, he hates Poolman because of his analytics, but Poolman’s D-zone analytics are actually quite good. He’s one of those players that is good defensively, poor offensively. The eye test, the stat sheet, and the analytics show this.
I honestly do not understand the hate for Poolman that many media members give him
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, VancouverHabitant said:
Drance was a social media guy with Florida Panthers and then went on and started boasting that he worked in the NHL as if he was a scout or something.
He does good research and has good attention to detail, but his hockey knowledge and takes scream of incompetence.
Sometimes it feels like he is borrowing his opinions from others instead of developing his own thoughts. I like the Vancast and I like some of his work, but he will often find someone’s opinion and stick to it. His Poolman take is, in my mind, a good example of this
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
15 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:The trade itself was pretty good but keep in mind Player Name, Beagle, Roussel all had massive negative value. Garland was a huge add and we got rid of bad contracts in the process. But long term OEL's contract is a major anchor. I get what he is saying.
Poolman seems like a fine 6/7 guy but 4 years at 2.5 million is a lot to commit to a player like that so I don't disagree. Half the value/half the term he would have been a solid signing. I am a little less high on him than I was on Jordie Benn who got 2x2.I think you’re being a little low on Poolman here. Strong skater, good along the boards, good in-front of his own net. He makes simple plays which limit his offense but frankly the Canucks have enough offensive d-men. Poolman fits the bill for what they need.
plus, his underlying numbers are pretty good as well
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
drance and Dayal grading the whole off season. Full article posted in the next comment, but I encourage you to read it from the source.
my biggest disagreements:
D grade for the Poolman signing; I think he is better than either writer is giving credit
C grade for Schmidt trade: the player had a bad season then asked out and was flexing is M-NTC. Getting any kind of return is a huge win considering the contract
and D+ for the OEL deal: it’s weird how they have the trade itself a b+ (about right) but then gave OEL a D+. Doesn’t make sense.
Edit:
forgot to mention, grading the Hughes and Pettersson contracts a D-minus when the haven’t even signed yet makes no sense. They should have just waited until after they signed to write the article
-
1
-
7
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Don’t read too much into this article. He gave the Canucks a B+ for centre depth, calling Dickinson and Horvat “quality middle 6 centres”. uhhhhhh, Horvat is much more than a middle 6 centre.
based on this guys grading system, he thinks the Leafs Defense (A- grade) is better than the Canucks Centre depth (B+ grade). The leafs have 3 good defensemen, 2 mediocre, and 1 young maybe (sandin). Apparently that represents a bigger position of strength than Pettersson, Horvat, Dickinson, sutter.
You can tell by his centre depth article that he is a leafs writer. He lists 5 centres for the leafs (matthews, Tavares, kampf, Engvall, and Kerfoot). For every other team, he only lists 4. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins? Not a centre! JT miller? Not a centre! Andrew Copp? Not a centre!
only Toronto is allowed to have a centre/winger hybrid in their lineup.
he also as this beauty to say about Toronto’s defense:
“It is also worth mentioning that Kyle Dubas’ decision to expose Jared McCann instead of Holl in the expansion draft looks smart in retrospect; the price of second-pairing defenders in free agency was obnoxious this summer, and the cost to replace Holl in the lineup would have been larger than anticipated.”
hmmmm let’s see, which one is more valuable. A 25 year old centre coming off a season where he paced at 61 points per 82 games, and still has one year left at less than $3 million dollars, OR a 29 year old 3rd pair defenseman who rode an 11.6% on ice shooting percentage last season and has a worse underlying profile than OEL, Tucker Poolman, and Travis hamonic? But the Canucks have the worst D-core in the division????
the mind boggles
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
Hey I commented on your Cap Friendly post saying Ottawa would be stupid to decline this trade and I stand by it.
Pettersson is the best player in this trade
hoglander just had a better season than stutzle
no thanks
-
15 minutes ago, J-P said:
That's true. Also, statistics is one thing, you also have to consider how bad ARI was vs WPG and that OEL was in a very bad situation. Let's see how OEL actually plays before making judgements, but it's not far fetched to believe OEL is in another tier vs Morrissey and that Poolman will thrive both from his own contributions since he's a good match in Vancouver and from being partnered with a superior partner in OEL or QH.
These charts are supposed to account for quality of teammates and quality of competition, while also being isolated from the impacts of other players.
that being said, it’s also just a one year history for each player. OEL still controls possession just fine, but something (whether it be injuries, age, system, or lack or caring) has caused him to be very permissive around the front of his own net.
im excited to see if he can regain form in Vancouver. If not, oh well. He’s still a fine #5 in my opinion. Overpayed, obviously, but he’s far less of a liability on the ice compared to what people make him out to be
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:
He’s going to be wearing Dana Murzyn’s old #5 in Vancouver.
Not a lot of recent “news” on Poolman, since that PITB “deep dive” article posted above. It’s worth a read though.
Particularly, Poolman’s isolated impact heat charts are worth a look (included in that article). His 5v5 xGA/60 is really encouraging. If he can just maintain those suppression stats, the rest should take care of itself, and he’ll be a strong partner for either OEL or Hughes.
Looking forward to seeing how he looks at camp and through the exhibition games. Hopefully he finds good chemistry and clicks with his partner, forming a longterm, stable pairing in our top-4, either with OEL (most likely) or Hughes (a “plan B” option that I really think has potential to prove successful, if given the chance, and a partnership that might actually be “greater than the sum of its parts”).
It will be interesting see how Poolman performs with OEL. It should actually be an easier assignment for him than playing with Morrissey…..
-
2 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:
This is a pretty good breakdown and makes some good points. I just wanted to touch on the scoring issue that gets a lot negatives. By looking at his stats I noticed that in his pre NHL years his point production isn't massive but decent at a little over .5 ppg. Good for a defensive dman. Conversely his goal scoring is quite good. 7,14,15,8,5,7 in consecutive years is above average and quite good for any defenceman really.
When I compared his 2019-2020 regular season he sat in the 50th - 100th overall in goals per game range for defenceman. That's out of about 200 dmen with top 6 duties. Right around players like Seth Jones, Nurse, and Rasmus Dahlin. He also fell in at around the 75 - 110 mark in assists and scoring. Not bad at all. A lot of people seem to glance at low point totals for dmen and jump to conclusions without realizing that most dmen are on the ice to defend and the Barries and Q.Hughes are far and few between. Point totals are highly proportional to the teams and lines they play on, Lets also keep in mind he only has about a year experience in the league so he is basically just finished his rookie year. Also a minus 1 in 57 games and over his 3 NHL seasons on a middling team is impressive in itself.
Goals:
Points:
My Conclusion: A large mobile defenseman who can chip in 5-10 goals in an 82 game schedule and doesn't concede more goals then his team scores =
Honestly, Poolman could score literally 0 points and I wouldn’t mind. Goal scoring won’t be a hughe issue for the Canucks this year. They should be more focused on keeping the picks out of their own net. Fortunately Poolman should help in this regard, compared to the player he is replacing….
-
-
Overrated player. Wonder what the AAV is.
I find it weird that Detroit seems to bridge every player they have.
-
On 8/20/2021 at 9:50 AM, Dazzle said:
I think this is a good signing as well. I know people freaked out about Stecher walking (a completely different timeline), but between Stecher and Poolman, it's clear that the latter can play harder minutes, while Stech has to be sheltered. I'm just saying we had been in need of upgrading our defense. This is one way of doing it.
Stecher was definitely nice to have, but he wasn't gonna come cheap either.
they had pretty similar results last year. Stecher better offensively but defensively they’re pretty close. Slight edge to poolman
this model is supposed to adjust for quality of competition and usage, but I will still note that Poolman was given far tougher assignments than stecher was.
in terms of play style, stecher is definitely a better puck carrier but Poolman will win more battles in front of the net and in the corners. Both are above average skaters. Poolman loves to take wristers from the point where as stech was better at walking the line.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Good deep dive into Poolman can be found here
TLDR:
THE GOOD: Poolman has good size and speed, decent gap control, strong defensive play when involved in a structured system, good at keeping chances away from the front of his net.
THE BAD: Poolman can get overwhelmed or lost when matched up against elite players, is solid in his own right but doesn’t make up for his partners defensive short comings, poor counter-attack/transition game, doesn’t create offense.
imo, given the cap hit and the places where Vancouver struggled last year, I really can’t complain. Solid signing for what he capable of bringing. He can play in the top 4 this year, but if the Canucks add a high end RHD at some point, his cap hit is low enough that you can easily justify reducing his role.
-
5
-
12 minutes ago, Fanuck said:
A penny over $10,276,829.00 and I'd probably take the 4 unprotected first round picks. Would hurt short-term, but we'd be so much stronger in the long- run overall as a franchise.
Nah I think it’s worth retaining petey at 11 or 12 million. He’s better than whatever those 4 picks will end up being. Once you get close to 13 million though, it really hamstrings your cap situation and unless he turns into a generational level player, it is a guaranteed overpayment based on my model.
i reaaalllyyy really doubt anyone submits an OS for that much though
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, McBackup said:
In regards to walking away as far as offer sheets go, I think its the inverse of players being available in a trade. The adage is "everyone is tradeable for the right price". If someone wants to give up a ton of high valued assets for a player, no matter who they are you have to look at it and consider making the move. The inverse is true with offersheets. If someone came along and offered Pettersson 8 years at 15 mil per, you have to at the very least consider it. Obviously thats an absurd overvaluation and wouldn't happen, but the principle behind the idea is there.
My walk away number for Pettersson is 12.85 million per season, any term. Anything less and I likely match
-
1
-
-
Where are we saucing the criteria for the xGF60 and CF% for play styles? And how are we defining play styles? Why do players suddenly change styles based on which wing they are on? How are we deriving values for consolidated statistics for different line combo’s? How could it be possible that the optimal line combination for the Vancouver Canucks puts JONAH GADJOVICH on the first line?
some of the data seem rigorous and precise, while other pieces seem ambiguous and qualitative. How were determine whether some one is a playmaker or shooter? Simply by watching highlights?
how are we adjusting for quality in teammates and competition? Bumping Dickinson up into the top 6 means top 6 match ups. Moving Sutter to the 4th line means 4th line matchups.
how do we conclude that a line of 3 playmakers is the best possible line? Where are we drawing data from to come to that conclusion?
not gunna lie, this just gives me way more questions than answers
-
7 hours ago, IBatch said:
What would the model look like if EP three year deal is the same as Barzal's? Also RH has a two year bridge at 5. Just read an article suggesting Guerin should offer sheet EP rather then go after Eichel...And offer the same money, 5 years at 10 million. The thinking is he wouldn't have to give up any assets other then futures...That's one scary proposition. If EP signs it ... wow i guess it really is all about the money lol, but if they can jam EP in with their budding Bure-esque scorer then ... i suppose EP could say he felt MIN was a winning team lol. There are flaws with the article, they aren't considering the facts right with the money JB has to spend. And that we could match and then return the favour in a couple years when we have money freeing up lol. Ten in MIN is like 10.5-11.0 here too. Can't see why EP wouldn't take a deal like that from any US team if it's all about the money. Detroit could easily do this too but i doubt Yzerman thinks they are done tanking, still need their picks.
Anyways - i still think both EP and QHs will end up with more then they should - but do understand, that the next 4-7 years will likely be some of if not all of their best ones. At the start i would have never said this, but at this point i'd be stoked if we did an identical 8-8.25x8 deal for the pair. QHs would be a little overpaid, and EP a little underpaid. If EP is worth 5 x 2 then he's not worth 7 x 3 either. Games played do factor in. It's not easy on a team when key players are only available 2/3 of a season...we went through this with Edler at times and especially Salo and Tanev.
Plugging in $7 million instead of $7.25 million lowers all contracts by about 100-200k annually. Not much of a difference. Increasing it to $7.5 million similar. Just bounces around the AAV’s in the margins. On all my number’s I would recommended viewing them as a range of +/- 5%.
that’s interesting about the 2 years at $5 million. Personally I think that is too low. Evolving-Hockey has a similar number for a 2 year deal (4.9 I believe) but they seem to be really underestimating Pettersson’s contract. They have him at $8 million for 8 years. Anything shorter and they have for under $8 million AAV.
Dhaliwal has reported on Donnie and Dhali that Barzal is the direct comparable they (the player agents) are using for the petey contract, so I feel very comfortable with my 3 year projection. It’s relatively easy to build out the UFA years using cap-hit %, though admittedly I may be undervaluing those years. 3 of the comparables are multi-cup winners (Kane, toews, and Kopitar) so I think they’re values are over inflated compared to what Petey’s next deal will be.
as for the offer sheet at 5 x 10…. It would be a super bad move for Minny. Canucks will instantly match but they will also likely hold a grudge. Minny will be in cap hell in 2 years when prarise and suter buy penalties are $15 million in dead cap. Not a good time to make an enemy if I’m them.
-
1
-
-
COPY AND PASTED FROM A DIFFERENT THREAD:
here are my Petey estimates:
8 years @ 9.6 million
7 years @ 9.3 million
6 years @ 8.9 million
5 years @ 8.4 million
4 years @ 7.6 million
3 years @ 7.25 million
i think the most likely scenario is either 3 or 6 years, based on Petey’s confidence in the team, the uncertainty of how the cap will increase over time, and how much petey thinks he will improve
explanation:I made a contract estimator on excel and ran different scenarios for what Pettersson’s contract might look like on different terms. Here are my assumptions:
A 3 year deal is 7.25 million AAV based on Barzal comparable + a little bit more due to Pettersson’s status and reputation.
UFA years (years 5-8 of any contract he signs) are worth $11.5 million per year in future dollars. That’s around ~$10.5 million in today’s dollars. I used players like draisaitl, point, Tavares, toews, courtourier, kopitar, and eichel to derive this number. His UFA years could be more expensive depending on inflation and how close to those players he and the Canucks believes he will be when he is 26 years old.
To estimate salary cap increase, I used 2 calculations. One assumes a 3% increase per year, the other assumes a flat $1 million increase per year. I estimate out 4 years (to
Pettersson’s first UFA year) to adjust his future dollars into real terms. Then I took the average of the two calculations for my model.
I assumed that Petey’s final RFA year (the 4th season from now) is worth his Qualifying Offer on a 3 year bridge at 7.25 million. The QO would be 120% of the AAV of the bridge deal (assuming backloaded), or $8.4 million. I weighted this value into all calculations of 4 years or more.
Finally, right before posting this, I Ran kaprizov’s rumoured $9x5 contract through the model using all the same assumptions. The only thing I changed was the number of RFA years (kaprizov only has 3 left, compared to Patterson’s 4). If we assume kaprizov is a comparable, then I found his new contract perfectly fits my model when adjusting for RFA years remaining.
So I plugged in all the different term options and here are my results.
Please note that my assumptions are based on a known value of a 3 year deal, so I’m not able to use the model to calculate 1 or 2 year deals.-
1
-
-
here are my Petey estimates:
8 years @ 9.6 million
7 years @ 9.3 million
6 years @ 8.9 million
5 years @ 8.4 million
4 years @ 7.6 million
3 years @ 7.25 million
i think the most likely scenario is either 3 or 6 years, based on Petey’s confidence in the team, the uncertainty of how the cap will increase over time, and how much petey thinks he will improve
explanation:I made a contract estimator on excel and ran different scenarios for what Pettersson’s contract might look like on different terms. Here are my assumptions:
A 3 year deal is 7.25 million AAV based on Barzal comparable + a little bit more due to Pettersson’s status and reputation.
UFA years (years 5-8 of any contract he signs) are worth $11.5 million per year in future dollars. That’s around ~$10.5 million in today’s dollars. I used players like draisaitl, point, Tavares, toews, courtourier, kopitar, and eichel to derive this number. His UFA years could be more expensive depending on inflation and how close to those players he and the Canucks believes he will be when he is 26 years old.
To estimate salary cap increase, I used 2 calculations. One assumes a 3% increase per year, the other assumes a flat $1 million increase per year. I estimate out 4 years (to
Pettersson’s first UFA year) to adjust his future dollars into real terms. Then I took the average of the two calculations for my model.
I assumed that Petey’s final RFA year (the 4th season from now) is worth his Qualifying Offer on a 3 year bridge at 7.25 million. The QO would be 120% of the AAV of the bridge deal (assuming backloaded), or $8.4 million. I weighted this value into all calculations of 4 years or more.
Finally, right before posting this, I Ran kaprizov’s rumoured $9x5 contract through the model using all the same assumptions. The only thing I changed was the number of RFA years (kaprizov only has 3 left, compared to Patterson’s 4). If we assume kaprizov is a comparable, then I found his new contract perfectly fits my model when adjusting for RFA years remaining.
So I plugged in all the different term options and here are my results.
Please note that my assumptions are based on a known value of a 3 year deal, so I’m not able to use the model to calculate 1 or 2 year deals.-
1
-
-
Take this with a grain of salt but, Tucker Poolman’s 2020-2021 season vs Chris Tanev’s 2019-2020 (his last season in Van). There is a chance Poolman can replace Tanev quite effectively. Poolman’s teammates just could not get any finnish while he was on the ice
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:
Huge missed opportunity by JFresh and company not to take some time to dig deeper into those Kesler numbers.
The best analysts would welcome a detailed discussion around Kesler’s PK WAR/GAR.
After all, when you have a Jack Adams winning coach deploying a Selke winning forward, with the highest PKTOI on the team, and among the highest PKTOI in the league, during that 2008-09 through 2010-11 period, and the model is only returning 2nd percentile results, that’s something worth looking at.
Hockey analysts interested in perfecting their models and increasing reliability would relish such an opportunity.
Whether it’s proving that the numbers are accurate and meaningful, and thereby demonstrating the value of analytics in teasing out useful data that’s missed by the “eye test,” or finding an error or weakness in the analytics, and using that information to continue to adjust and perfect the model, it’s really a win-win, if the goal is to better understand the game through numbers.
Disappointing not to see someone in the analytics community digging into this further, because I think there’s a really fruitful discussion to be had here.
Reminds me of when he posted a Nils Hoglander card a few months ago. Many pointed out the penalty impacts must be wrong. He said he would look into them but never ended up posting anything about why there is a discrepancy.
that’s my only problem with these models. Data are collected, input, and displayed to be informative. However, so much information is lost along the way. Why is there a discrepancy between what we see and what the data indicate? Is it bad data? Input error? Are we missing something when we’re watching? How is an expected goal calculated? How does coaching impact the data and how is it accounted for? How do we know that the data be used are in fact the best metrics for determining how much a player contributes to their team winning?
even if these questions were answered, they aren’t answered in the player card that gets shared and retweeted around to make definitive points (by some) on which players are good an which are bad. I think there may be some merit to an argument that these cards cause more harm than good in informing discussions of player value
-
1
-
[Article] Offseason grades from the Athletic
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Canucks will have just over 16 million in space when Ferland is place on LTIR, assuming Rathbone, Podkolzin, and MacEwan all make the team. If these guys all were get sent down and replaced with league minimum players, it would increase the Canucks cap space by about 500k.
this is also assuming a 23 man roster, if the Canucks ran with only 22 players (like Tampa will this year) then they could increase it by another 750k.
basically, 8 million each is easy. Could even do more if needed. I don’t see how it gets a D- minus