Moneyball & Canuckville

[TrevorLinden4ever]

What is the point you are trying to make?

Are you suggesting that the recently fired management and coaching staff failed to apply your definition of "moneyball management" or that we need to bring in a GM that is better at it than what we had? Last time I checked, MG/LG et. al. were at the tops of the league in using advanced analytics; even to the point that the players were managed on the ice based on their strengths (that is, under AV, but completely ignored by Tortorella).

BTW, "moneyball management" is defined as utilizing advanced analytics to acquire players on the cheap, so your definition to support whatever thesis you were trying to make is already skewed to serve your point, whatever that is. Put another way, moneyball management is spending at league minimum and winning the cup, or having a legit shot at winning the cup.

For the Canucks, an example of moneyballing is the signing of Richardson at $1.1M, Santorelli at $550k and picking up Stanton on waivers for a cap hit of $550k. I'm sure Canucks management of the day studied their stats and made the conscious choice to go after these players with the offers that were made to them. That is moneyballing.

Moneyballing would be deciding to not sign Burrows at a cost of $4.5M and opting for a kid Antoine Roussel for league minimum who arguably is comparable (or projected to be comparable) to Burrows...or replacing Burrows with someone like Santorelli for, say $1.25M (based on offensive stats, ice time, versatility at forward positions, and other underlying data that make up advanced analytics in hockey).

One thing I agree with your post is bringing in someone like Mike Smith, who IMO is one of the most underrated hockey men out there (e.g., he was the brains behind bringing players like Selanne, Zhamnov, Khabibulin, Tkachuk into the NHL, giving the Leafs fans something to cheer about, and writing one of the most interesting books titled "Life After Hockey"). IMO, he would be great as a Senior Advisor.

But really, what's your point?

you checked that they were tops in the nhl in using it huh. should I take your word for it and if so, what are your sources. maybe they tried to duplicate the program Smith or Corsi developed, but I doubt MG even came close to using analytics the way Beane has done.

take a look at rock solid teams like boston, chicago and LA who just happen to be Cup champions. you cannot tell me with a straight face the canucks have the same depth guys that they do. santorelli - he had a few moments, but that was it. nothing compared to the tangibles of a versteeg or what a lot of the bottom six have done for either of those teams in the playoffs.