apollo Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 9 minutes ago, oldnews said: Ah, and by extension we could look to Horvats' +/- last year, think it was actually significant, and come to the utterly ludicrous assumption that he's not one of the best forwards on this team. If people want to cherry pick +/- or "possession" in no context whatsover, fill your boots - y'all are the ones missing out on comprehending player's abilities as a result. Horvat's +/- last year? Bo wasn't the same player he was last year than he is this year. He worked hard all off season to get better. But yes, I do agree that +/- isn't the be all, end all. Again, I like Sutter don't get me wrong, but he isn't our 2nd best forward. If you take Bo, Hank, or Danny out, we're a worse team than if you take Sutter out. To me, at least based on play this year, Sutter, Sven and Hansen are our 4th, 5th, and 6th best players... to what order though, I'm not sure... that's a whole different argument itself. I'd probably say Sutter 4th, Hansen 5th and Sven 6th but it could be mixed up edit: if there's any confusion, I'm talking forwards. Not including d-man, because we all know who our best dman is anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 3 hours ago, WeneedLumme said: The posters complaining about Sutter remind me of that sleaze Gallagher. On 1040 this morning, in the same interview he yammered on about how disappointing Sutter's play has been and then described the Canucks getting a point last night (due to SUTTER scoring a very clutch goal) as pure luck. To to me that kind of blatant dishonesty is difficult to fathom, but to the trolls, haters and simpletons who like to emulate Gallagher I guess it's just the usual "duh, I'm entitled to express my opinion". With respect to the OP's point, I would say that Sutter's skill level is maybe number 5 or 6 among Canuck forwards, but due to his versatility and work ethic I would agree that he is probably the second most valuable forward to the team, behind only Bo. i see a huge amount of 1040 commentary being regurgitated on these boards they espouse views they think will be controversial to enhance ratings they are talking heads but too many buy too much of they say as somehow being valid (much of what they say is just plain stupid) and yeah gallagher's biases are so evident and well known to anyone who has had to encounter his writings since the pat quinn days - he is tiring i only recently began to listen to 1040 occasionally and noticed immediately a correlation between there noise and what is being said on here would be nice if there was a bit more independent thought on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 15 minutes ago, Alflives said: Hodgson was better than Kesler...better dressed. Sutter is a good player. He's nothing special. I agree, I'd reserve the word "special" for a number of the player evaluations in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, apollo said: Horvat's +/- last year? Bo wasn't the same player he was last year than he is this year. He worked hard all off season to get better. But yes, I do agree that +/- isn't the be all, end all. Again, I like Sutter don't get me wrong, but he isn't our 2nd best forward. If you take Bo, Hank, or Danny out, we're a worse team than if you take Sutter out. To me, at least based on play this year, Sutter, Sven and Hansen are our 4th, 5th, and 6th best players... to what order though, I'm not sure... that's a whole different argument itself. I'd probably say Sutter 4th, Hansen 5th and Sven 6th but it could be mixed up Honestly (if Hansen was healthy) you could make a sensible argument for any of Hank, Dank, Sutter, Hansen and Horvat as our 'most important' forward on any given night. Next tier would probably be Baer and Eriksson then Granlund and Burr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 3 hours ago, S'all Good Man said: Ouch. Admittedly nearly all of what I've seen are things from hacks like Yost or stuff people put up here, and wow, its so bad. I'd really like to see things progress, it would be really interesting to see a proper model. But right now it sure feels like people get an idea, then go "get" the stats to prove their point, vs letting the data propose the models. This is a great article for understanding just how poor "advanced stats" are in measuring individual performance and making year to year predictions for players: http://hockeyanalysis.com/2016/03/03/evaluating-player-evaluation-metrics-and-expected-goal-models/ Here's an excerpt: To summarize, Corsi can at best explain approximately 50% of a players offensive talent and somewhere around or a little less than 1 year (500 minutes) is where the sample size is large enough that GF60 is a more reliable measure of a players offensive performance And while goals data certainly provides more value than Corsi over samples >500 minutes, it still doesn't really give you good numbers until you get into multi-year samples. Similarly, the article shows that those "expected goals" models du jour don't really do better than Corsi. And the dirty little secret in analytics? None of the models work for defensemen. They only have predictive value, meagre as it is, with forwards. For defensemen, the "advanced stats" really don't tell us anything. http://hockeyanalysis.com/2011/07/12/how-i-evaluate-players-and-why/ http://thesportjournal.org/article/goal-based-metrics-better-than-shot-based-metrics-at-predicting-hockey-success/ So remember the above articles any time somebody tried to use Corsi to tell you how good or bad a dman is. Have to give a ton of credit here to David Johnson of Hockey Analysis (and the same guy who runs the invaluable resource stats.hockeyanalysis.com). He's been something of a rebel in the analytics community in taking people to task about their assumptions and consistently pointing out how crap "predictive analytics" are in hockey. Here's a great piece from a couple weeks ago: http://hockeyanalysis.com/2017/01/02/predictive-analyics-have-failed-hockey-analytics/ And, to move things back on topic a little, here's Johnson calling BS on the online analytics community saying Brandon Sutter is a "replacement level" defensive forward: http://hockeyanalysis.com/2016/07/15/the-brandon-sutter-litmus-test/ Johnson's take on Sutter: I am going to propose that claiming Brandon Sutter is a below replacement level defensive player be a litmus test for whether you are doing hockey analytics correctly or not. Cheeky stuff. Love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, apollo said: Horvat's +/- last year? Bo wasn't the same player he was last year than he is this year. Not sure if serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 When you make this look easy......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, J.R. said: Honestly (if Hansen was healthy) you could make a sensible argument for any of Hank, Dank, Sutter, Hansen and Horvat as our 'most important' forward on any given night. Next tier would probably be Baer and Eriksson then Granlund and Burr. Man... Hansen is so underrated... we're really missing his presence right now. His return can't come soon enough. If Loui gets rolling too that wouldn't be bad either... at 6 mill you'd hope he'd be at the very least one of our top 5 forwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTG Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, oldnews said: Actually, it's the analytics that are poor. "Possession" stats with no context - ie shutdown minutes with high qoc, low ozone starts are utterly meaningless and reductive and give a person literally no indication of a player's true effectiveness, something I'm pretty sure you're aware of. I could and would dig into them all over again had I not done so quite thoroughly - including looking at who Sutter has played with throughout his career - in the Sutter trade thread and simply can't be bothered to rehash it all. If people wish to delude themselves into thinking Sutter is a fourth line - or even third line center based upon a ludicrous cherry-pick, that's their prerogative. Willful ignorance is in vogue. this whole "low-ozone starts" is just nonsense, Sutter Over the past 3 seasons 2013-16 (161 games with Pit/20 games with Van) games he's started 57% on the fly, and only 10% of his shifts start in the defensive zone. Look where Sutter gives up his most unblocked shots against http://hockeyviz.com/fixedImg/teamShotLocDefWi/1617/VAN/suttebr89 Most of them in prime scoring areas. Most of his common linemates include (Henrik,Daniel, Granlund, Hansen, Loui Eriksson) So basically, only Granlund there sucks and drags him down, the rest he drags down. Seriously, this is such god damn nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, apollo said: Man... Hansen is so underrated... we're really missing his presence right now. His return can't come soon enough. If Loui gets rolling too that wouldn't be bad either... at 6 mill you'd hope he'd be at the very least one of our top 5 forwards Agree wholeheartedly re: Hansen. I'm not worried about LE. He'll settle in and he'll be far more important post-Sedin anyway IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 40 minutes ago, ice orca said: Maybe Willie should have used him against Johansen last night as Horvat got eaten alive. Horvat has been getting a big brunt of matchups against teams top guys almost exclusive in the d-zone. exactly how could willie have effectively done that since nashville had the last change? i guess he could have reduced horvat's ice time by constantly pulling him off the ice whenever johansen stepped on but then people would complain about the reduced ice time and think willie failed about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohoforpresident Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 28 minutes ago, WTG said: "If your claim goes against the status quo then it's a wrong claim" "If you are using data and science to determine that the earth is not flat but in fact round then your data/science is wrong" - Catholic Church Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Nice to see all the positive posts ...Sutter was a good signing to help our rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 On 2015-08-04 at 10:37 PM, oldnews said: Been beaten to death in the other threads already, so here's the abbreviated version of Sutter's "advanced stats". Hardest minutes among Pittsburgh forwards - as in strong quality of competition and relatively low offensive zone starts. Weak quality of linemates. A corsi on that was a mere -1.74 in that context. Nothing horrible whatsoever about those underlying numbers. Very good production in that context - 21 goals would put him where exactly among 3rd line centers in the NHL? k thanks. On 2016-01-27 at 0:22 AM, oldnews said: This one will be fun to track for sure. Like following up on the gaggle of 'CanucksArmy' pretenders that propped up ludicrous claims that Sbisa's one of the very worst defensemen in the NHL with garbage applications of underlying numbers and claims that re-signing him to a multi-year deal would be "the first move in constructing a Panzer division." One of the very worst defensemen in the NHL - not worthy of regular NHL minutes. The Canucks are so drunk that Sbisa is facing the strongest quality of competition of any blueliner on the team, while only Tanev and Edler have lower offensive zone starts. Because they're looking to finish 30th overall, of course. On 2015-07-28 at 11:34 AM, oldnews said: Not sure where you come up with that but let's look at the real numbers realistically. +.425 quality of competition was the strongest of Pens centers and third among regular forwards (his relative qoc was 2nd strongest among forwards, and only two blueliners faced stronger. His 46.8% offensive zone starts were 2nd lowest on the Pens (to Max Lapierre). That number appears artificially high as the Pens as a whole were a very strong possession team where only a handful of players fell below 50%. Sutter's minutes were the hardest minutes of any forward on the Pens. His corsi on was a mere -1.74 in that context - nothing "extremely poor" about that whatsoever. Moreover, his primary linemates did not have very good underlying numbers. Steve Downie had 52.2% ozone starts, faced the 4th weakest quality of competition on the team (-.548) and had a negative corsi (-1.37) in softer minutes. Spaling had 51.2% ozone starts, faced the 18th strongest qoc (.124) and had a marginally above waterline corsi on of 3.37. Not bad, but nothing worth noting. Both of those guys put up Derek Dorsett offensive production. So to summarize - Sutter played the hardest minutes, had unimpressive puck possession linemates, had unimpressive offensive linemates, managed very respectable underlying numbers in that context, scored 21 goals, and 33pts, good for 5th in scoring among Penguins forwards, and 6th overall. Those are actually quite impressive objective outcomes - and they don't touch upon other tangibles like added strength in the faceoff circle, more defensive grit, and strength in the harder areas... And then there is the 'eye-test', which for people who saw him in the playoffs, was very strong motivation to pursue the young man. On 2015-07-29 at 4:22 PM, oldnews said: What you may have also found in your digging is that Sutter has played primarily with Steve Downie and Nick Spaling last year, and the year before it was Craig Adams, Joe Vitale and Tanner Glass. I am not going to rehash the underlying number of those players - I've already done so in this thread - but I will summarize very shortly: they all faced significantly weaker quality of competition than Sutter, with the exception of Glass, they all had higher offensive zone starts than Sutter. This is what makes those wowy/hero charts so asinine. The idea that Sutter made his linemates worse is utterly ridiculous. The reality is that every one of those players played far, far softer minutes when they were not playing with him. Here's the other reality. They all produced less than him, despite the fact that he was playing the hardest minutes among forwards on that team. They piggy backed off him when they played together Sutter was the Penguins 5th leading forward scorer last year, and 6th the year before. Joe Vitale scored 14 points, Tanner Glass 13, Craig Adams 11, Downie and Spaling scored 28 and 27. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, WTG said: Seriously, this is such god damn nonsense Yes, it is - and why stop there - can we have a "hero chart" with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Corsi this, plus minus that -- Sutter is all about the intangibles. He is a bargain at his current contract (thanks Benning!) and it was a very good move signing a foundation type player that brings it at all levels. Sutter's family pedigree is probably the best in the entire league. He just oozes humble leadership, and is a stabilizing force on a team that has the potential to fly apart at the seams. He is best at center, and now that Bo is emerging as a star, Sutter can be the best 3rd line center in the league, exactly where he belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTG Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Just now, oldnews said: Yes, it is - and why stop there - can we have a "hero chart" with that? If you don't want to believe facts, but instead want to claim things without evidence there is nothing stopping you. But if you want to claim things you typically have to back it up. You claimed all of his defensive zone starts ect... I showed that he only started 10% of his shifts in the defensive zone. You want to claim his high QoC, well, again His QoC isn't that high. Now that we provided context to the situation we can accurately access that the statistics of Sutter are not widely out of place. But if you want to go on with rejection of facts, go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, WTG said: I showed that he only started 10% of his shifts in the defensive zone. So you're telling me players frequently change on the fly....?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, WTG said: If you don't want to believe facts, but instead want to claim things without evidence there is nothing stopping you. ...................... Now that we provided context to the situation we can accurately access that the statistics of Sutter are not widely out of place. But if you want to go on with rejection of facts, go ahead. i have absolutely no interest at all in getting into any debate over analytics but you are delusional (and uneducated) if you think those are facts as in scientific facts putting together some analytic theory involving numbers does not make the outcome facts at best these approaches are weak hypotheses and as many on here are noting there is need for more testing and revision to their hypotheses the analytic theory (as it relates to hockey) may move closer to being factual in time but even in baseball, where this approach has more history, i doubt many would call these numbers facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 45 minutes ago, oldnews said: Johnston wanted him at C2 and talked of how he had room to grow offensively. Malkin moved to RW2 but it was not very productive so he was moved back to C3. Even Strength Line Combinations Freq Line Combination 32.5% DOWNIE,STEVE - SPALING,NICK - SUTTER,BRANDON 21.9% BENNETT,BEAU - SPALING,NICK - SUTTER,BRANDON 19.8% BENNETT,BEAU - DOWNIE,STEVE - SUTTER,BRANDON 14% COMEAU,BLAKE - MALKIN,EVGENI - SUTTER,BRANDON 11.7% DUPUIS,PASCAL - MALKIN,EVGENI - SUTTER,BRANDON - See more at: http://dobberhockey.com/players/brandon-sutter/2014-2015/regular#sthash.ySD5szn0.dpuf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.