FINAL Canucks "Top DAWG" Report under Tocchet - Just released.

[EddieVedder]

13 hours ago, eeeeergh said:

Yes it is. Tbh any player rating system that evaluates Burroughs' level of "contributions" as greater than Hughes is a stupid system. 

 

I love Burroughs but he wont win us games. Hughes wins us games. 

No one player is winning you games.  A team and their ability to play a system is winning you games. 

[Hairy Kneel]

14 hours ago, eeeeergh said:

Yes it is. Tbh any player rating system that evaluates Burroughs' level of "contributions" as greater than Hughes is a stupid system. 

 

I love Burroughs but he wont win us games. Hughes wins us games. 

Apple and orange 

Hughes finesse scorer 

Burroughs backs his sh** up

We need that balance of skill and grit

[Hairy Kneel]

19 hours ago, Baggins said:

Kuzmenko wasn't much above Boeser. The top d-men were Burroughs, Schenn, Juulsen and Bear, while Hughes was just above Wolanin and Rathbone. Garland ranked higher than Hughes. Not sure what that says about the formula in regards to quality of player.

I think Hughes and Kuz speed has something to do with that. They can skate out of tricky spots and both can always find open space. 

Their shifty, and tough to catch. 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Hairy Kneel

[CanucksJay]

Lol just when I thought Faber was going to let this thing die, he comes back. 

Not a fan of DAWG metrics. 

Gimmicky and stupid. Well it's not even gimmicky. It's just stupid. 

 

 

[250Integra]

[EdgarM]

17 hours ago, Alflives said:

It’s a stupid way of evaluating players who are elite skill. It’s actually just a stupid way of evaluating players. 

Well if you look at it in itself, sure, but if you include it with other player stats it makes perfect sense. You can have a player with lower DAWG scores but the ones with higher scores are obviously less "One Dimensional" Players. Would you rather have a player who can just score goals or would you rather have him have a more well rounded game? Say like a Miller who can also hit and stick up for other players(fight). 

I think it becomes more important when you look at the bottom 6 players who statistically have less offense in their game. If they aren't top DAWGS then they are probably pretty useless (i.e. PLUGS). We have had many of them over the years. 

Petey is a good example when it comes to a DAWG score. Obviously a key player on the team, but because he does other things, he is far more valuable. He is not one dimensional. Hughes gets a pass because he does other things so great. Although it would be great if he a had a partner who excelled in the areas he is weaker in.

Unfortunately we have had players form the 1st line to the the 4th line, who had low DAWG scores. We also had leaders who lead in this department in the past. 

Not a recipe for success to say the least.

[RU SERIOUS]

4 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Well if you look at it in itself, sure, but if you include it with other player stats it makes perfect sense. You can have a player with lower DAWG scores but the ones with higher scores are obviously less "One Dimensional" Players. Would you rather have a player who can just score goals or would you rather have him have a more well rounded game? Say like a Miller who can also hit and stick up for other players(fight). 

I think it becomes more important when you look at the bottom 6 players who statistically have less offense in their game. If they aren't top DAWGS then they are probably pretty useless (i.e. PLUGS). We have had many of them over the years. 

Petey is a good example when it comes to a DAWG score. Obviously a key player on the team, but because he does other things, he is far more valuable. He is not one dimensional. Hughes gets a pass because he does other things so great. Although it would be great if he a had a partner who excelled in the areas he is weaker in.

Unfortunately we have had players form the 1st line to the the 4th line, who had low DAWG scores. We also had leaders who lead in this department in the past. 

Not a recipe for success to say the least.

Very well explainsed and while everyone needs to keep this report in perspective, I certainly do agree that when it comes playoff time especialy, I'd rather have a team of high scoring DAWG players than otherwise because as we've all seen in the past week, one dimensional Low-DAWG players lose their shine pretty quick come playoff time.

[Gawdzukes]

19 hours ago, Alflives said:

This rating system makes little sense. We don’t need a DAWG rating to see Hughes is brilliant and OEL struggled badly. 

What about a CAWT rating. Would that make any difference?

[CanucksJay]

50 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Well if you look at it in itself, sure, but if you include it with other player stats it makes perfect sense. You can have a player with lower DAWG scores but the ones with higher scores are obviously less "One Dimensional" Players. Would you rather have a player who can just score goals or would you rather have him have a more well rounded game? Say like a Miller who can also hit and stick up for other players(fight). 

I think it becomes more important when you look at the bottom 6 players who statistically have less offense in their game. If they aren't top DAWGS then they are probably pretty useless (i.e. PLUGS). We have had many of them over the years. 

Petey is a good example when it comes to a DAWG score. Obviously a key player on the team, but because he does other things, he is far more valuable. He is not one dimensional. Hughes gets a pass because he does other things so great. Although it would be great if he a had a partner who excelled in the areas he is weaker in.

Unfortunately we have had players form the 1st line to the the 4th line, who had low DAWG scores. We also had leaders who lead in this department in the past. 

Not a recipe for success to say the least.

 

42 minutes ago, RU SERIOUS said:

Very well explainsed and while everyone needs to keep this report in perspective, I certainly do agree that when it comes playoff time especialy, I'd rather have a team of high scoring DAWG players than otherwise because as we've all seen in the past week, one dimensional Low-DAWG players lose their shine pretty quick come playoff time.

Can we please stop using DAWG metrics. It's utterly stupid. 

My fear is that it'll catch on CDC

[EdgarM]

45 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

 

Can we please stop using DAWG metrics. It's utterly stupid. 

My fear is that it'll catch on CDC

Well......the puck used to look like this, so anything is possible. 

[CanucksJay]

28 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Well......the puck used to look like this, so anything is possible. 

Anything to grow that US market. 

 

 

[CanucksJay]

So, I just have to roster guys like Lazar and Pezzetta and have a top pairing of Schenn and Burroughs to win the cup? 

 

Not only will we have the highest DAWG rating but we will also have the lowest cap.

Win win. 

 

Faber should just be completely transparent about his formula (a+b+c+d) etc and tell us what each variable means and where he got the stats so we can look at it and either help improve it or throw it in the garbage. 

 

Here's a thought. 

 

I'll also add in my top DAWGs and low DAWGs 

 

Chris Neil 82.5 , Tom Wilson 87.6, Chris Pronger 92.4 , Scott Stevens 88.3, Raffi Torres 78.5

 

Low DAWGS

Kyle Wellwood 25.4 , Jayson Megna 32.2, Linden Vey 28.6

 

Look at that, I did what Faber did in 2 min

 

 

 

 

 

[iceman64]

16 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

Yes, things could be worse like when MG departed and left us with 11 or 13 NTC's - if memory serves me correctly - and I agree 100%, that after watching several 1st Rd. playoff games that our soft Euro-Centric Team of Regular-Season Finesse Kittens would be torn to shreds in 1 - perhaps 2 games flat.   

 

I can barely count on one hand the number of players on our team with any inherent "Fire in the Belly" that is essential to survive round after punishing round of playoff hockey.    It's been too long since any players on our team have faced real adversity and highly physical play - having only played one year of playoff hockey in the last 7 or 8 years (and will be close to a decade next year if we actually make the playoffs) and so they've become a bunch of small, slow & soft - spring time golfers. 

 

Even JR eventually couldn't deny and hide the facts and broke down a few months back - finally admitting openly that he needed to get this team built Bigger, Faster and Grittier so we'd have some sort of chance of getting out of the basement of the league - which hopefully Tock-It can assist with too.

Yep, well we have enough scoring punch that's actually starting to play (sort of) a better 200' game that we've needed all along but sooner or later lack of size will get exposed as it has so glad it happened so at least it can be addressed but can JR pull off the balance point so we can become Elite at the top 5-10 team. I really can't say but it's going to be a long summer waiting to see, but if we can replicate the 2011/2012 roster which basically was a bigger, faster forechecking team that forced turnovers a lot that led to goals like it's been against US ever since especially at the beginning of this year with Demko out and half the D out, it was feast time for opposing forwards. 

 We're not far off actually BUT we still need the same thing, and depth seems to be growing but if it's traded away and picks as well, we're screwed. 

 Idk though, trading away Schenn wasn't a step in the right direction, the guy was the perfect 3-4 pairing D but maybe he was going to ask for a huge raise or something we couldn't afford. 

 

 

 

[Alflives]

13 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

So, I just have to roster guys like Lazar and Pezzetta and have a top pairing of Schenn and Burroughs to win the cup? 

 

Not only will we have the highest DAWG rating but we will also have the lowest cap.

Win win. 

 

Faber should just be completely transparent about his formula (a+b+c+d) etc and tell us what each variable means and where he got the stats so we can look at it and either help improve it or throw it in the garbage. 

 

Here's a thought. 

 

I'll also add in my top DAWGs and low DAWGs 

 

Chris Neil 82.5 , Tom Wilson 87.6, Chris Pronger 92.4 , Scott Stevens 88.3, Raffi Torres 78.5

 

Low DAWGS

Kyle Wellwood 25.4 , Jayson Megna 32.2, Linden Vey 28.6

 

Look at that, I did what Faber did in 2 min

 

 

 

 

 

This DAWG system just has the feel it was created by someone who can't skate. It has to be the stupidest way to rank player performance out there. 

[CanucksJay]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

This DAWG system just has the feel it was created by someone who can't skate. It has to be the stupidest way to rank player performance out there. 

It's also not clear at all

In trying to give Faber the benefit of the doubt, not only did I read his recent article but I went back to the Dec article where he claims he explains the formula in better detail. 

He gives the equation but does not back up the equation by explaining any of the variables and says they got half the "stats" from public sources and half from manual tracking of games... Like what the hell does that mean? 

My guess is public stats are hits, blocked shots, goals, assists, shots etc

What are the other half? 

 

Like how do you create a metric without telling you what information is being considered and how they calculate and give weight to it? 

 

All I knows is (a+b+c+d) is given a 1.6x while some other variable is given 1.4x. 

 

Also that means a+b+c+d must all be equally important....

 

Like jeez man. What an amateur. It's like getting accounting advice from a bear riding a tricycle. 

 

 

 

 

[alt kilgore]

20 hours ago, eeeeergh said:

Yes it is. Tbh any player rating system that evaluates Burroughs' level of "contributions" as greater than Hughes is a stupid system. 

 

I love Burroughs but he wont win us games. Hughes wins us games. 

 

You've already had replies similar but I just can't let this go.   Of course Burroughs helps win us games.  It's one dimensional thinking to think otherwise.  Sticking up for teammates can change momemtum. So can a big hit. So can efficiently getting the puck out of danger in his zone and smartly moving the puck up the ice, on a consistent basis, which Burroughs does exceptionally well.  You do not see Kyle make many mistakes.

 

Tanev had the same problem earlier at least, with some fans seeing any value in a defenceman that didn't put up numbers and could 'only'....you know....actually play defence. No matter how well. 

 

I swear it must be a kind of reverse bias with some fans. If a player is paid too much for what they bring they are rightly criticized.  But some players are also overlooked if they are paid too little.  (there must be a good reason!) Add onto that the "local boy" angle where its also assumed a player from here, like a Virtanten, always has an unfair advantage with multiple shots.

 

But no, IMO at least, Burroughs is one of our best D.  And his particular type of contributions ARE greater than Hughes in some areas.  Toughness, and even puck recovery using his size and angles.  Hughes is great when he actually has the puck. Which is why they make such great partners.

 

My opinion of this management would drop greatly if they were stupid enough not to re-sign Kyle. Even with a pay raise to a mill. or mill and a half, he is a bargain for what he  brings to help us WIN GAMES.

[CanucksJay]

10 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

You've already had replies similar but I just can't let this go.   Of course Burroughs helps win us games.  It's one dimensional thinking to think otherwise.  Sticking up for teammates can change momemtum. So can a big hit. So can efficiently getting the puck out of danger in his zone and smartly moving the puck up the ice, on a consistent basis, which Burroughs does exceptionally well.  You do not see Kyle make many mistakes.

 

Tanev had the same problem earlier at least, with some fans seeing any value in a defenceman that didn't put up numbers and could 'only'....you know....actually play defence. No matter how well. 

 

I swear it must be a kind of reverse bias with some fans. If a player is paid too much for what they bring they are rightly criticized.  But some players are also overlooked if they are paid too little.  (there must be a good reason!) Add onto that the "local boy" angle where its also assumed a player from here, like a Virtanten, always has an unfair advantage with multiple shots.

 

But no, IMO at least, Burroughs is one of our best D.  And his particular type of contributions ARE greater than Hughes in some areas.  Toughness, and even puck recovery using his size and angles.  Hughes is great when he actually has the puck. Which is why they make such great partners.

 

My opinion of this management would drop greatly if they were stupid enough not to re-sign Kyle. Even with a pay raise to a mill. or mill and a half, he is a bargain for what he  brings to help us WIN GAMES.

Im a big Burroughs fan. Love guys like him and schenn that gives some respect and credibility to the team. 

That being said said, the Dawg rating doesn't capture the importance of him to say Hughes for example. 

 

A really simple way to consider this would be to say look at the hits stat. 

Schenn out hits Hughes by a wide margin. 

 

But if my custom stat gave hits a 90 percent weight vs controlled zone exits at Like 10 percent, you would think Schenn is more valuable than Hughes. 

 

The problem in all of this is that we don't even know what variables and weight Faber is giving to any of these stats. 

 

A team definitely needs tough guys that can hit and block shots. But they also need elite skilled players. 

 

I would wager that an elite skilled player is a rarer commodity than a physical player. 

 

That's why I think the Dawg rating is stupid. Every team needs a dawg or 2. Maybe even 3.

 

So maybe this stat is only pertinent when looking at filling the role of a dawg and evaluating 2 dawgs when looking at free agency. 

 

However Faber compares all players on the same Dawg scale and that is why this whole thing is stupid. 

 

[EddieVedder]

Frikin love Burroughs.  Has more balls than half our team combined.  

[CanucksJay]

2 minutes ago, EddieVedder said:

Frikin love Burroughs.  Has more balls than half our team combined.  

Love that guy too. 

He needs to work on his mobility but love what he brings to the table every night. 

We need to be a hard team to play against and he does that. 

I would want him either as a 7th dman or a 6D with a good partner who ups his game. 

[alt kilgore]

10 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

Im a big Burroughs fan. Love guys like him and schenn that gives some respect and credibility to the team. 

That being said said, the Dawg rating doesn't capture the importance of him to say Hughes for example. 

 

A really simple way to consider this would be to say look at the hits stat. 

Schenn out hits Hughes by a wide margin. 

 

But if my custom stat gave hits a 90 percent weight vs controlled zone exits at Like 10 percent, you would think Schenn is more valuable than Hughes. 

 

The problem in all of this is that we don't even know what variables and weight Faber is giving to any of these stats. 

 

A team definitely needs tough guys that can hit and block shots. But they also need elite skilled players. 

 

I would wager that an elite skilled player is a rarer commodity than a physical player. 

 

That's why I think the Dawg rating is stupid. Every team needs a dawg or 2. Maybe even 3.

 

So maybe this stat is only pertinent when looking at filling the role of a dawg and evaluating 2 dawgs when looking at free agency. 

 

However Faber compares all players on the same Dawg scale and that is why this whole thing is stupid. 

 

 

I agree that this Dawg rating system is flawed.  It puts a lot of weight on physicality obviously.  I'm more interested how this rating coincides with my own eye test looking at all aspects of what a good d is.  In a lower post you said "He needs to work on his mobility" which I find odd. What kind of mobility are you talking about?  He's not nearly as mobile as Hughes in deking out players etc. (which actually can get Quinn in trouble when he tries to get too cute) But its not his job to make offensive rushes up the ice.

 

I'd argue Burroughs is exceptionally mobile compared to other defensemen on the team besides Quinn, within his own d zone. While other D hang onto the puck, panic and give it away, he is mobile in the sense he sees the ice well, and thinks the game very fast, and makes good quick decisions shielding the puck and getting it to a forward near the blue line better than the others. Many times that forward will then lose the puck, but thats not on Burroughs.  He also, from my eye test, is not out of position much. Very disciplined in that area too.  I just can't see any flaws with his game other than he can't seem to put up points.