GOOD DAY SUNSHINE

The Oilers have several prospects at the WJSS (World Junior Summer Showcase) and some in the group are shining like a diamond. We were gifted a terrific report yesterday afternoon courtesy poster Todd Macallan.

MACALLAN UPDATE

  • Kailer Yamamoto was excellent all night. Scored a nice goal from a Kemp deflection and was an absolute puck hound on the forecheck. Also spent some time on the PK and was effective to my eye. Not surprised at the speed and skill I saw, but was surprised by how well rounded his game was tonight.
  • Phillip Kemp was steady and barely noticeable (a compliment for a player of his ilk). No mobility issues, made solid breakout passes and was on the ice with 2:00 left defending a 1 goal lead. Not bad for a 7th rounder.
  • Stu Skinner struggled, as did the whole CAN team in front of him for the half game he played. 4 goals on 11 shots, but only the last one I’d say he could’ve had. I think summer hockey is tougher on goalies than any other positions. Still love him as a prospect.
  • Dylan Wells on the other hand was stellar in the second half of the game and without him no way does CAN come back to win.
  • Aapeli Rasanen seemed to win every faceoff and made a beauty cross seam pass for the game tying goal for FIN before they lost in OT.

That’s an excellent update and I thank Todd for it. Here are the boxcars so far in this tournament for Oilers prospects:

  1. Kailer Yamamoto 4gp, 2-2-4 (7 shots) (2-1-3 at evens)
  2. Phil Kemp 4gp, 0-1-1 (1 shot) (0-1-1 at evens)
  3. Aapeli Rasanen 2gp, 0-1-1 (1 shots) (0-1-1 at evens)
  4. Markus Niemelainen 2gp, 0-1-1 (0 shots) (0-1-1 at evens)
  5. Dylan Wells 2gp, 4.23 .875
  6. Stuart Skinner 2gp, 8.23 .727

Yamamoto looks fabulous (I’ve watched two of his games and he’s a bull on skates, very aggressive), Wells had a dandy outing in half a game yesterday. Important to take all of this with the proper measure of salt, but it’s the hockey and Edmonton has six prospects from these countries eligible to play at Christmas.

THIRTY-NINE PICKS

Between the selection of Kevin Lowe in 1979’s 1st round and Esa Tikkanen in 1983’s 3rd round the Edmonton Oilers (in 39 picks) acquired the heart of a champion. In fact, that “draft cluster” rivals the best 5 year procurement timelines in NHL history.

  • Goal: Grant Fuhr, Andy Moog
  • Defense: Paul Coffey, Kevin Lowe, Steve Smith, Jeff Beukeboom
  • Center: Mark Messier, Walt Poddubny, Marc Habscheid
  • Left Wing: Esa Tikkanen, Jaroslav Pouzar, Raimo Summanen
  • Right Wing: Juri Kurri, Glenn Anderson

Astounding quality and depth, especially when you consider Wayne Gretzky was already on the roster the day Lowe was chosen. I wonder how many men who deliver 5-10 quality seasons (or more) have been drafted as part of the McDavid cluster. That is going to be a key element, and will require success outside the first round. Perhaps Anton Slepyshev is the first one to make it.

THAT CRAZY TRADE

  • Edmonton traded Valentin Zykov to Los Angeles for Bogdan Yakimov, Anton Slepyshev, Jackson Houck, Kyle Platzer and Aidan Muir.

It’s been a little while since I updated this thing, thought I might take a minute to break things down. Zykov is now in the Carolina system, played two games there this season (NHL debut). The Oilers have Slepyshev on the verge of regular status and retained Yakimov’s rights (he is the other substantial prospect in the group). At this point, MacT looks like the winner in this trade on Slepyshev alone, and his analytics people made the right call in advising him to trade down. Believe it or not, this coming season will be No. 5 after the draft, meaning the earliest we can make a call. Looks good right now, still some track to go.

PERSONAL OPINION

I received some feedback yesterday about my RE and how it is rolling out among the forward group. For me, the RE is a guess about deployment, what Todd McLellan will end up doing. I do have the coach moving Leon to center, but far later in the season. That’s the RE. If I had my druthers, I would keep all three centers up the middle and take some chances on RW.

  • Maroon—McDavid—Strome
  • Lucic—Draisaitl—Slepyshev
  • Jokinen—Nuge—Puljujarvi
  • Caggiula—Letestu—Kassian
  • Klefbom—Larsson
  • Russell—Benning
  • Nurse—Gryba
  • Talbot (Brossoit)

My extra’s would be Jujhar Khaira, Ty Rattie and Johann Auvitu. That’s the lineup I would prefer but I don’t believe it’ll happen. McDavid—Draisaitl is too much to resist, I believe.

LOWDOWN WITH LOWETIDE

A fun day on the Lowdown, starting at 10 on TSN1260. Scheduled to appear:

  • Bruce McCurdy, Cult of Hockey. Yamamoto at the Showcase, Strome on wing, Nurse-Gryba as third pair.
  • Jeff Hauser, The Ralphie Report. John Elways signs another long deal with the Broncos.
  • Dave Dawson, Onside CFL Fantasy. CFL weekend offers some terrific matchups.
  • Rob Vollman, ESPN & NHL.com. The new book drops very soon!

10-1260 text, @Lowetide on twitter. 90 minutes until showtime!

 

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

85 Responses to "GOOD DAY SUNSHINE"

  1. Kinger_Oil.redux says:

    – Great post LT! LT says: “At this point, MacT looks like the winner in this trade”

    – I don’t get how you choose to evaluate this trade and see how it works out over time to figure out who was the winner, yet you are so adamant and obstinate that the Hall trade was a loss the day it happened, and that nothing will change your mind, based on future performance.

    – I’ve highlighted this contradiction before.

    – those 39 picks you mention: they all hinge on Gretzky. I don’t believe any of those players end up as good sans Gretz. McD, like Gretz is a game changer for his teammates, IMO. Gretz pulled up all the players on his line, and everyone else got to play lesser opponents, and they were so often in the lead: when your team is leading, your players are better

  2. JJS says:

    Kinger_Oil.redux:
    – Great post LT!LT says: “At this point, MacT looks like the winner in this trade”

    – I don’t get how choose to evaluate this trade and see how it works out over time to figure out who was the winner, yet you are so adamant and obstinate that the Hall trade was a loss the day it happened, and that nothing will change your mind, based on future performance.

    –I’ve highlighted this contraction before.

    – those 39 picks you mention: they all hinge on Gretzky.I don’t believe any of those players end up as good sans Gretz.McD, like Gretz is a game changer for his teammates, IMO.Gretz pulled up all the players on his line, and everyone else got to play lesser opponents, and they were so often in the lead: when your team is leading, your players are better

    The difference is one scenario involves draft picks whereas the other involves seasoned players.

    We can’t compare draft picks until the player potential begins to show i.e. the 5 year threshold.

    For seasoned players, we already have a track record to complain about, err I mean compare.

  3. JJS says:

    I’d like to see a long audition on McDavid’s right wing this year.

    And by corollary, Drais gets a long look at center with various wingers.

    We know Drais works on the first line with immediate chemistry so it is money in hand. Cash it when needed.

  4. Lowetide says:

    Kinger: I have explained this, you choose not to accept my explanation. It seems we are not going to be able to settle this with words and I am too old to duel. 🙂

  5. Kinger_Oil.redux says:

    JJS: The difference is one scenario involves draft picks whereas the other involves seasoned players.

    We can’t compare draft picks until the player potential begins to show i.e. the 5 year threshold.

    For seasoned players, we already have a track record to complain about, err I mean compare.

    – Trades occur for anticipated future performance: not past performance (or perception of players).

    – While draft picks take a longer time to evaluate as you note: it’s the same principal.

  6. TO10801 says:

    I think Yamamoto is going to turn some heads at camp although he has several steps to pass before we can talk about him making the opening night roster. He is dominant against his peers, but we will see how he does against older prospects in Penticton and then how he handles softer comp in preseason. If he is still noticeable at the end of the preseason I think he may stick around. Its going to be really hard to resist his speed on this team since that may be the one flaw throughout the lineup.

  7. Silver Streak says:

    Good Morning to all….clear cool crisp Alberta morning here in Red Deer. Some guys just can’t leave LT and his Hall – Larson hangup alone….LT you mentioned Volman has a new book out soon…….the book I would love to see would be the tell all of 30 years in the Oilers Room by Joey Moss !! Would that not be a page turner…It would open the door, and seal behind it, a lot of rumours …..maybe have a long time trainer ghost write it with him….

  8. Bag of Pucks says:

    For all the verbal about the Hall trade, that Lucic contract could end up being a way worse decision in the long run.

    For me, this is the one aspect of management that really doesn’t get focused on enough. We spend a lot of time talking about assets in terms of players: the quality of assets coming in, the quality of assets going out, the trending value of the asset, the declining value of the asset, etc.

    But in a cap system, it’s not about who accrues all of the shiny toys. Cos unlike the NYR of the 80s, eventually you run out of cap room to pay all those assets.

    Chia’s primary function is to realize maximum value for every asset he invests in. This is why I particularly like the bets he’s making with college players and under the radar FAs. In a poker tournament, we tend to focus on who wins the glamorous hands with the pocket pair or gutshot straight draw, but the players who win the tournaments are the ones that steal pots multiple times with middling hands.

    The concern? Is he putting too many chips back in the middle with the Lucic, Russell and potentially, the Drai contracts? Let’s hope not.

  9. unca miltie says:

    Lowetide:
    Kinger: I have explained this, you choose not to accept my explanation. It seems we are not going to be able to settle this with words and I am too old to duel.

    You can still duel with pistols when you are old

  10. Bag of Pucks says:

    TO10801:
    I think Yamamoto is going to turn some heads at camp although he has several steps to pass before we can talk about him making the opening night roster. He is dominant against his peers, but we will see how he does against older prospects in Penticton and then how he handles softer comp in preseason. If he is still noticeable at the end of the preseason I think he may stick around. Its going to be really hard to resist his speed on this team since that may be the one flaw throughout the lineup.

    How does he respond to a stick in the face from Matthew Tkachuk? I think that’s the type of answer you need on this player.

    Way too small imo. I send him back to junior (and the weight room) without a second’s hesitation.

    Hope he proves me wrong as we could use the skill on the wing, but really not a fan of this pick.

  11. OriginalPouzar says:

    I read the posts from this poster yesterday and was grateful for the updates – thank you poster!

    Great to hear on Yamamoto, however, frankly, I would have expected this type of performance from him and I anticipate him staring in the tournament.

    His skill is undeniable and I expect him to dominate against other teenagers – his challenge and hurdle to the NHL and stardom is being able to compete with big and strong men. No matter how much he excels in the WHL this year or in the WJHC this year, we won’t know really know about his future until he’s playing real games against professional men.

  12. Jordan says:

    Lowetide,
    Kinger_Oil.redux,

    I grapple with how to evaluate The Trade as well. Specifically because it’s so compelling. Both players are very good to great players. Both play the game very differently. Both teams involved were at very different points in their development cycles, and since then, the gaps between both teams have grown larger.

    Can you evaluate this simply based on the attributes of the hockey players invovled?

    If not, how much weight do you provide to the contract? Team needs? Relative value of different positions played on a team? Cap situation? How cost savings / additional spending impacts the trade value? Team performance since the trade?

    Based on what LT has said, my understanding of his view is:
    Soley based on the attributes of the players invovled, The Oilers lost the trade, because overall Hall is a better hockey player at his position than Adam Larsson is at his position.

    This would be the “Lost the battle” part of his usual comment.

    However, when those other components are factored in (contract, team needs, relative value of positions, cap situation, cost savings / additional spending impacts and team performance) the Oilers clearly come on much further ahead than the Devils.

    This would be the “Won the War” part.

    LT, I hope you don’t object to me speaking for you, but one of the lesson’s I’ve learned both here and elsewhere is that if there is an ongoing issue with a conflict of ideas, it’s more often than not an issue with how the information is being communicated. I hope my manner of explaining it helps to clarify the discussion and resolve it.

    It makes sense to me, anyways. =)

  13. doritogrande says:

    You can still duel with pistols when you are old

    Nobody wants to see five shots miss the broad side of a barn and a sixth that wings a shoulder. Ah, the ravages of time.

  14. Woogie63 says:

    Bensen is hurt for this camp, but was invited, so have some high end prospects to watch over the next couple of years.

  15. Kinger_Oil.redux says:

    Jordan:
    Lowetide,
    Kinger_Oil.redux,

    LT, I hope you don’t object to me speaking for you, but one of the lesson’s I’ve learned both here and elsewhere is that if there is an ongoing issue with a conflict of ideas, it’s more often than not an issue with how the information is being communicated.I hope my manner of explaining it helps to clarify the discussion and resolve it.

    – A good summary Jordan: it’s a fascinating topic actually the trade: But if host doesn’t want to engage, thats his perogative. I do get a kick out of those who say something like: “I’ve said all I need to say about the trade, and am not interested in discussing further”

    – Becasue it’s not open and shut: it’s such a great topic to discuss IMO

    – Even in LT’s tone: he’s clearly not “done with it” it’s not settled in his mind and heart IMO

  16. Ducey says:

    JJS: The difference is one scenario involves draft picks whereas the other involves seasoned players.

    We can’t compare draft picks until the player potential begins to show i.e. the 5 year threshold.

    For seasoned players, we already have a track record to complain about, err I mean compare.

    I’m sort of with Kinger on this.

    You can’t ignore what happens down the line to determine if it was a good trade.

    The Maroon trade was kind of meh at the time. A guy struggling in ANA with only 13 points in 56 games. They trade him for Gernat and a 4th.

    Looking back, it was a great trade. Maroon has established himself as one of the better LW in the game, loves EDM and has added toughness and swagger. Gernat is out of the NHL path and the 4th (Jack Kopacka) is unknown, but he didn’t take a big step in his draft +1 year.

    If someone asked anyone if the Maroon trade was good trade for the Oilers, they would say it was. If Kopacka turns into a first line star, that likely moderates their enthusiasm for the trade, while acknowledging giving up a 4th is like giving a lottery ticket.

    And it doesn’t make much difference to me whether you are dealing with picks or not. Was the Jason Smith trade a good one? They got a player who did was not really working out after about 5 NHL seasons for a few later round picks. He turned out to be one of their best captains and defensemen ever. At the time, meh. In retrospect, great.

    How bad the Reinhart trade will be will be based on how well the picks turn out and whether Reinhart turns into something good.

    If Hall continues to ‘lead’ NJ into the wilderness, and Larsson wins a Con Smyth, well sorry, that is going to add some shine to the trade from the Oiler’s perspective.

  17. Ducey says:

    doritogrande:
    You can still duel with pistols when you are old

    Nobody wants to see five shots miss the broad side of a barn and a sixth that wings a shoulder. Ah, the ravages of time.

    I see LT as William Munny. He just needs a few belts of whiskey and he will be shooting as straight as ever.

  18. Ranchman says:

    Maybe I was asleep when he was acquired but, at the risk of sounding foolish,…. who the hell is Phil Hunt?

  19. Professor Q says:

    Ducey: I see LT as William Munny. He just needs a few belts of whiskey and he will be shooting as straight as ever.

    Not Barry Badrinath?

  20. Lowetide says:

    Professor Q: Not Barry Badrinath?

    Barry Lyndon.

  21. Ranchman says:

    I just realized “Hunt” should be “Kemp”…

  22. Brantford Boy says:

    Sitting here listening to the Foo Fighters greatest hits I downloaded last night in an attempt to understand the connection to the RE series as I am not a big fan… but how did we get on the Hall trade, AGAIN… wtf!

  23. VOR says:

    Kinger_Oil.Redux,

    The problem for your side of the argument is this: nowhere near enough time has passed since the trade for enough data to have collected to have any idea which team, if either, won or lost this trade. You are simply replacing Lowetide’s analysis of the trade at time of occurance with an analysis that suffers from a high level of recency bias and that is plagued by multiple confounding factors. Viewed from a methodological prespective Lowetide’s argument is quite sound. Your, approach, sadly, is not.

    That isn’t a shot. I have loved reading your posts on the subject and in fact the entire extensive arguments about the trade presented here have entertained and informed me. I just decided that perhaps it was time for somebody to point out the obvious. One year in the playing careers of two outstanding players has passed. No conclusions can actually be drawn from such a small data set. .

  24. Side says:

    VOR:
    Kinger_Oil.Redux,

    No conclusions can actually be drawn from such a small data set. .

    Then how do you accept that someone is concluding it’s ‘still’ a “loss”?

  25. Jordan says:

    VOR:
    Kinger_Oil.Redux,

    The problem for your side of the argument is this: nowhere near enough time has passed since the trade for enough data to have collected to have any idea which team, if either, won or lost this trade. You are simply replacing Lowetide’s analysis of the trade at time of occurance with an analysis that suffers from a high level of recency bias and that is plagued by multiple confounding factors. Viewed from a methodological prespective Lowetide’s argument is quite sound. Your, approach, sadly, is not.

    That isn’t a shot. I have loved reading your posts on the subject and in fact the entire extensive arguments about the trade presented here have entertained and informed me. I just decided that perhaps it was time for somebody to point out the obvious. One year in the playing careers of two outstanding players has passed. No conclusions can actually be drawn from such a small data set. .

    Apparently I’m playing the role of the guy playing with matches near the old tire pile today.

    We make conclusions from one year of playing data all the time, especially when we are talking about established NHL Players. That’s a huge part of what happens here, including the reasonable expectations series. I suspect that the “recency” bias you speak of is a big part of what sent Jordan Eberle on his way. Nothing against the person, but you have got to beleive if he wasn’t so snake-bit in the post-season, he might have stayed.

    Conclusion drawn, decision made, and player moved. Cap savings to be spent on TBD and Strome.

    Why aren’t we talking about this trade?
    1 – Don’t know what TBD is
    2 – Acceptance that Ebs didn’t bring elements that we accept are important to winning a championship
    3 – Hope Strome can fill most of the void

    Why we are still talking about The Trade?
    1 – Emotional investment in Taylor Hall
    2 – 1 for 1 trades are easier to evaluate and make a decision on about your assessment of value

    I hated The Trade. Terrible asset management. Just god-aweful value for the second best left wing in the NHL.

    But, the more I look at the other changes that happened as a result of that trade, and the team that grew out of it, I think it was the right call. All of the other ways to evaluate it tell me this trade is a win for the Oilers.

    You can claim we don’t have enough information to make an informed decision about how this trade will look in 5, 10, or 20 years. And that’s true.

    But it doesn’t change how it is evaluated now. If your goal on making a call on the trade is to be right 100% of the time, then hold off on making a call.

    I’d rather acknowledge I don’t know what the future holds and say that right now, this is my opinion. It’s your right to form your own opinion and express if as you see fit.

  26. blainer says:

    Bag of Pucks: How does he respond to a stick in the face from Matthew Tkachuk? I think that’s the type of answer you need on this player.

    Way too small imo. I send him back to junior (and the weight room) without a second’s hesitation.

    Hope he proves me wrong as we could use the skill on the wing, but really not a fan of this pick.

    I’m with ya on this 100%.

    No way he should even be near the opening night lineup.

    I defiantly would have picked Vesalinean.. Big Fin who can play center or wing… they must have really liked yammer’s game.. Maybe they think he is Chia’s smaller version of Marchand ..

    Just curious.. who would you have selected in that spot ?

  27. doritogrande says:

    Maybe I was asleep when he was acquired but, at the risk of sounding foolish,…. who the hell is Phil Hunt?

    Phil Kemp is our 7th rounder from this year. USNDTP player, big RHD that’s more of a stay-at-home type. I believe he’s USHLing it this year before college but could be wrong.

    He’s tracking well the first couple of months since his draft, but then again so did Greg Chase.

  28. Bag of Pucks says:

    blainer: I’m with ya on this 100%.

    No way he should even be near the opening night lineup.

    I defiantly would have picked Vesalinean.. Big Fin who can play center or wing… they must have really likes yammer’s game.. Maybe they think he is Chia’s smaller version of Marchand ..

    Just curious.. who would you have selected in that spot ?

    No idea. Since we finally fell out of the lottery, I’ve not spent a lot of time pouring over scouting reports for draft eligibles.

    It feels somewhat freeing. That stuff was becoming like fetish porn for Oiler fans.

  29. doritogrande says:

    Just curious.. who would you have selected in that spot ?

    Not that this was directed at me, but I had Tolvanen, Poehling and Lind ahead of Yamamoto. I raged when Toronto stepped up and took Liljegren.

  30. blainer says:

    Jordan:
    Lowetide,
    Kinger_Oil.redux,

    I grapple with how to evaluate The Trade as well.Specifically because it’s so compelling.Both players are very good to great players.Both play the game very differently.Both teams involved were at very different points in their development cycles, and since then, the gaps between both teams have grown larger.

    Can you evaluate this simply based on the attributes of the hockey players invovled?

    If not, how much weight do you provide to the contract?Team needs?Relative value of different positions played on a team?Cap situation?How cost savings / additional spending impacts the trade value?Team performance since the trade?

    Based on what LT has said, my understanding of his view is:
    Soley based on the attributes of the players invovled, The Oilers lost the trade, because overall Hall is a better hockey player at his position than Adam Larsson is at his position.

    This would be the “Lost the battle” part of his usual comment.

    However, when those other components are factored in (contract, team needs, relative value of positions, cap situation, cost savings / additional spending impacts and team performance) the Oilers clearly come on much further ahead than the Devils.

    This would be the “Won the War” part.

    LT, I hope you don’t object to me speaking for you, but one of the lesson’s I’ve learned both here and elsewhere is that if there is an ongoing issue with a conflict of ideas, it’s more often than not an issue with how the information is being communicated.I hope my manner of explaining it helps to clarify the discussion and resolve it.

    It makes sense to me, anyways.=)

    I don’t chime in on the Hall trade much anymore as I was and am happy with the return

    I will say this…

    I am predicting a very big year for Hall. I think he stays healthy and they put together a great PP with Hershier Hall and that Zacha breaks out this year as well.

    Watch out for that trade should never have been made talk here when that happens !!

    The thing for this team is the loss of that big RT shot D to Edmonton hurts them.

  31. blainer says:

    Bag of Pucks: No idea. Since we finally fell out of the lottery, I’ve not spent a lot of time pouring over scouting reports for draft eligibles.

    It feels somewhat freeing. That stuff was becoming like fetish porn for Oiler fans.

    lol.. I agree.. It was an odd draft year not debating who we were taking in the top three !!

  32. Bag of Pucks says:

    doritogrande:
    Maybe I was asleep when he was acquired but, at the risk of sounding foolish,…. who the hell is Phil Hunt?

    Phil Kemp is our 7th rounder from this year. USNDTP player, big RHD that’s more of a stay-at-home type. I believe he’s USHLing it this year before college but could be wrong.

    He’s tracking well the first couple of months since his draft, but then again so did Greg Chase.

    I always thought it would be great if there was an NHLer named Mike Hunt, if nothing else for the sheer comedic value during radio broadcasts.

  33. Westchester Oil says:

    Didn’t Styx write a song about Kailer:

    “Domi arigato, Kailer Yamamoto”

  34. SayItAin'tSo, Gretz, SayItAin'tSo! says:

    blainer,

    Bag of Pucks,

    Matthew Tkachuk’s teammate Johnny Gaudreau says hi!

    How will Yamamoto react? Well he’ll react like anyone and probably grab his face. Then there will be the next shift that Kassian, Maroon, Lucic, Draisaitl, Nurse, Larsson or Pool Party takes that will probably have some sort of retributive angle to it and the universe will carry on. Same as it always was.

    Over the last few seasons I don’t remember too many smaller players getting blown up by the giants. The more pressing issue that skill guys have dealt with are whacks to the hands and that kind of crap which the NHL has said they will crack down on this year.

    I understand concern over his size, but calling him a “bad pick” seems well a tad bit early considering all of the scouting compilers had him in the range that the Oilers picked him.

  35. blainer says:

    doritogrande:
    Just curious.. who would you have selected in that spot ?

    Not that this was directed at me, but I had Tolvanen, Poehling and Lind ahead of Yamamoto. I raged when Toronto stepped up and took Liljegren.

    Ya I agree. I really think Toronto picked up a great D there. This draft was really crazy and I bet this will actually turn out to be a much better draft then a lot of the experts predicted. Just a hunch ..

  36. blainer says:

    SayItAin’tSo, Gretz, SayItAin’tSo!:
    blainer,

    Bag of Pucks,

    Matthew Tkachuk’s teammate Johnny Gaudreau says hi!

    How will Yamamoto react? Well he’ll react like anyone and probably grab his face. Then there will be the next shift that Kassian, Maroon, Lucic, Draisaitl, Nurse, Larsson or Pool Party takes that will probably have some sort of retributive angle to it and the universe will carry on. Same as it always was.

    Over the last few seasons I don’t remember too many smaller players getting blown up by the giants. The more pressing issue that skill guys have dealt with are whacks to the hands and that kind of crap which the NHL has said they will crack down on this year.

    I understand concern over his size, but calling him a “bad pick” seems well a tad bit early considering all of the scouting compilers had him in the range that the Oilers picked him.

    Ya I should probably say that I am fine with Yammer( not sure what his nic name is but this sounds Ok to me).

    I am not a scout but I really liked Vesaleinen better and was hoping there would be a nice connection with him and JP.

    Now as you know I am an optimistic fan so I will say back to junior for Yammer this year and rookie of the year in 2019 !!

    Oh and another cup for the oilers !!

  37. Bag of Pucks says:

    SayItAin’tSo, Gretz, SayItAin’tSo!,

    Didn’t say he was a bad pick. Said I’m not a fan of the pick. The distinction btw the two is it’s not who I would’ve picked, but there’s every possibility it could turn out for the best and I’ll root for the player regardless,

    Outside the top 5, they’re lottery tickets. For that reason, I have very low expectations when it comes to draft prospects. Every time one arrives as a legitimate NHL player, I’m pleasantly surprised.

    What grinds my gears is when teams A) fail to build down the middle or B) fail to adequately factor in development timelines in their roster build strategies. Other than that, the draft is the very definition of educated guesses with a big emphasis on the ‘guess’ part.

  38. chrisco stu says:

    Ducey,

    I always pictured Lowetide as more of a Kid Shelleen from Cat Ballou

  39. Pink Socks says:

    Bag of Pucks: I always thought it would be great if there was an NHLer named Mike Hunt, if nothing else for the sheer comedic value during radio broadcasts.

    I think Mike Hawk would be better on the offensive though.

  40. Bag of Pucks says:

    Pink Socks: I think Mike Hawk would be better on the offensive though.

    Hard to say without seeing a head to head matchup first.

  41. leadfarmer says:

    Bag of Pucks:
    SayItAin’tSo, Gretz, SayItAin’tSo!,

    Didn’t say he was a bad pick. Said I’m not a fan of the pick. The distinction btw the two is it’s not who I would’ve picked, but there’s every possibility it could turn out for the best and I’ll root for the player regardless,

    Outside the top 5, they’re lottery tickets. For that reason, I have very low expectations when it comes to draft prospects. Every time one arrives as a legitimate NHL player, I’m pleasantly surprised.

    What grinds my gears is when teams A) fail to build down the middle or B) fail to adequately factor in development timelines in their roster build strategies. Other than that, the draft is the very definition of educated guesses with a big emphasis on the ‘guess’ part.

    Completely disagree. I think teams missed left and right in this draft. This was a perfect draft to swing for the fences with a Yamamoto pick. And I’m a person that says draft d and centers high

  42. blainer says:

    leadfarmer: Completely disagree.I think teams missed left and right in this draft.This was a perfect draft to swing for the fences with a Yamamoto pick.And I’m a person that says draft d and centers high

    Ya I was really expecting the Oilers to pick way more centers the last two drafts as it’s always easier to move a center to wing than vice versa.

    That and as I recall the coach has said on many occasions that the more centers the better.

    I really look forward to watching this draft unfold.

  43. leadfarmer says:

    blainer: Ya I was really expecting the Oilers to pick way more centers the last two drafts as it’s always easier to move a center to wing than vice versa.

    That and as I recall the coach has said on many occasions that the more centers the better.

    I really look forward to watching this draft unfold.

    Given that a player was chosen from a league that could at best be described as second tier league and a 160 lb beanpole from Sweden in the top 5 I have no reservations taking a flyer on a mid to late first round pick that would have been taken 1st Overall if he was 6 foot 190 lbs

  44. VOR says:

    side,

    The person saying it is “still” a “loss” may simply be saying there isn’t enough data to overturn their original position that it was a loss. They don’t need to argue the data, though they have, repeatedly. Again, I would say those posts make great reading but lack statistical rigor.

  45. Doug McLachlan says:

    When does October get here?

    I am consuming the scraps of hockey news with an unhealthy hunger. Thanks for setting a lovely buffet table twice a day, LT. So appreciated.

    The good news is that I am getting the chance to finish up Rob Vollman’s “Stat Shot” and loving it. As per Silver Streak above, any idea LT when the next one drops?

    ***

    I still can’t get Chia’s end of season presser’s comments out of my mind about how well Nurse and Larsson looked as a pair. Coupled with some of Jonathan Willis’s comments regarding Klefbom and Larsson on the most recent PDOcast – I am intrigued by the idea of how Larsson’s steady presence in the back-end could help unlock Nurse’ super-rover powers.

    Thanks for the stats on PuckIQ and in particular the WOWY function which I have no doubt butchered below.

    When looking at Nurse-Larsson, the regular season WOWY numbers show the pair with a insignificant 61min so sample size warnings need to be adjusted to full volume. Still the two together managed a 52.5 CF%, 61.8 DFF% and a 70.0 GF%!!

    If we were to separate the super-Swedes, who then do you pair Klefbom with? Again the sample sizes are not large here. McLellan went with what worked and Klefbom-Larsson worked pretty well so while the offensive/defensive structure might suggest Gryba (50.3 CF%, 55.5 DFF% in only 78min the 37.5 GF% is what you get with Gryba) I don’t think Gryba frees Oscar much on the offensive side of the puck. It will come as surprise that a Klefbom-Russell pairing looks like death (64min to produce 47.4 CF%, 47.5 DFF% and 40 GF%).

    My thought would be to try Klefbom with Benning. At 131min we have incrementally more sample size, but still caution, caution, caution. Nevertheless, the two have a 54.3 CF%, 49.0 DFF% and an tempting 61.5 GF%.

    That leaves the most unpopular $4millon man in advanced stats history, Kris Russell. Too much, too long, all granted but the guy is an actual NHL d-man so if he can be used smartly, there is value to be found (or at least Chia and TMac believe). I suspect that a lot of his value can be found on the PK but for moments in the playoffs he was actually advancing the puck – if only because of a lack of options.

    If we look at Russel in a third-pairing role, and place him on his handed side, we may actually sneak a peek at the value that TMac and Hartley see in him.

    With the other dance partners spoken for in my scheme, we pair Russell with Gryba. Their time together was almost non-existent last season, a mere 24min over a full season. I am going presume on those instances when they were on the ice together that Russell slid over to his natural left-handed side and see that they managed a 56.9 CF%, a 54.4 DFF% and a respectable 50 GF%.

    Nurse-Larsson
    Klefbom-Benning
    Russell-Gryba
    Auvitu as your #7*

    *to spell in for offensive shifts and some #2 PP time and you try and ride it out until Sekera returns.

  46. blainer says:

    leadfarmer: Given that a player was chosen from a league that could at best be described as second tier league and a 160 lb beanpole from Sweden in the top 5 I have no reservations taking a flyer on a mid to late first round pick that would have been taken 1st Overall if he was 6 foot 190 lbs

    Ya I think at this point in the draft it’s fine to take a flier as it worked out with Ebs. Most of the centers were picked by the time it was the Oil’s turn.

    I would have loved to know how high they had Yam on their list.

    I still think Vesa would have been good at 6’3 207lbs and a center.. but am by no means upset with who was picked.

    Looking forward to seeing Yam at camp for sure.

  47. VOR says:

    Jordan,

    I have no problem with people saying this is their opinion and defending that opinion. It is what makes this such a great blog. I just think that these opinions are often being stated as facts. In crafting their opinions some posters have forgotten they are guessing.

    I started off to point out that LT isn’t guessing at least not as much as those who are evaluating the trade in real time on a longitudinal basis. In order to do that it was first necessary to make the case that given the recency of the trade and the confounding factors it is impossible to say with any certainty who won or lost the trade. That shouldn’t be taken to mean that you aren’t entitled to have an opinion, even a strong one. Just that any data presented, pro or con, is currently without the kind of significance needed to warrant anyone changing their opinion.

    That would include our host.

  48. Lowetide says:

    For those who don’t know my opinion on the trade, allow me to repeat what is a mostly uninteresting story.

    1. I stated at the time it was a poor trade in terms of value. My opinion has never changed because the value in that moment has not changed.
    2. I have acknowledged, and honestly I didn’t get much pushback, that PC had to address the loss of Jeff Petry. He did it thrice (Larsson, Russell, Benning) and that’s an impressive set of upgrades.
    3. I haven’t changed my mind on the trade, since the time it was made has passed. That said, you can certainly see the thinking behind it. As that isn’t part of the trade, we can’t include it but that is a consideration.
    4. Larsson has been an excellent addition to the team and it’s clear Klefbom benefited from Larsson (and I think vice versa).

    Peter Chiarelli could win this trade for things like Hall’s offense hitting a plateau (players do peak early offensively), Larsson’s steady play, injury and all manner of things. In the passing of time, we may come to agree that Chiarelli made out very well on the trade.

    None of which changes my original opinion, because it requires going back in time to change it. The Hall trade was a net loss at the time, considering all things. That does not mean the Oilers won’t get the better of the deal, because there are all manner of forces writing the story every day.

    I’ve written this before, probably shall again. I encourage you to respect my opinion even as I do yours. That’s kind of the point of this blog.

  49. Dirk Dangler says:

    VOR:
    Jordan,

    I have no problem with people saying this is their opinion and defending that opinion. It is what makes this such a great blog. I just think that these opinions are often being stated as facts. In crafting their opinions some posters have forgotten they are guessing.

    I started off to point out that LT isn’t guessing at least not as much as those who are evaluating the trade in real time on a longitudinal basis. In order to do that it was first necessary to make the case that given the recency of the trade and the confounding factors it is impossible to say with any certainty who won or lost the trade. That shouldn’t be taken to mean that you aren’t entitled to have an opinion, even a strong one. Just that any data presented, pro or con, is currently without the kind of significance needed to warrant anyone changing their opinion.

    That would include our host.

    In your opinion.

  50. Dirk Dangler says:

    Lowetide,

    LT, thanks for re-iterating your view on The Trade even though it has been shared numerous times. It can be exhausting to repeat yourself. Your patience doesn’t go unnoticed.

  51. blainer says:

    Lowetide:
    For those who don’t know my opinion on the trade, allow me to repeat what is a mostly uninteresting story.

    1. I stated at the time it was a poor trade in terms of value. My opinion has never changed because the value in that moment has not changed.
    2. I have acknowledged,and honestly I didn’t get much pushback, that PC had to address the loss of Jeff Petry. He did it thrice (Larsson, Russell, Benning) and that’s an impressive set of upgrades.
    3. I haven’t changed my mind on the trade, since the time it was made has passed. That said, you can certainly see the thinking behind it. As that isn’t part of the trade, we can’t include it but that is a consideration.
    4. Larsson has been an excellent addition to the team and it’s clear Klefbom benefited from Larsson (and I think vice versa).

    Peter Chiarelli could win this trade for things like Hall’s offense hitting a plateau (players do peak early offensively), Larsson’s steady play, injury and all manner of things. In the passing of time, we may come to agree that Chiarelli made out very well on the trade.

    None of which changes my original opinion, because it requires going back in time to change it. The Hall trade was a net loss at the time, considering all things. That does not mean the Oilers won’t get the better of the deal, because there are all manner of forces writing the story every day.

    I’ve written this before, probably shall again. I encourage you to respect my opinion even as I do yours. That’s kind of the point of this blog.

    Thanks for this LT.

    As I am getting older the old memory isn’t what it used to be.

    I actually did forget your take but did remember your feelings on the day of the trade and that you sometimes remind us that you really like and miss the player.

    Your take makes lots of sense to me.. Still..

  52. Lowetide says:

    blainer: Thanks for this LT.

    As I am getting older the old memory isn’t what it used to be.

    I actually did forget your take but did remember your feelings on the day of the trade and that you sometimes remind us that you really like and miss the player.

    Your take makes lots of sense to me.. Still..

    My guess is that people want finality and to move on, and it irritates when not everyone joins the chorus. I expect this trade will fracture the fan base and have said (and believe) even a Stanley will not close the wound. I’ve had my frustrations over folks not moving on, but have reminded myself it’s not my place to tell people how to think.

    For me, I’m delighted to have Larsson on the team. I was also wrong in pushing the Subban deal, a trade that would have left the team without Draisaitl and Nurse (or Klef) plus No. 4 in 2016 (receiving MTL’s selection).

  53. Georges says:

    VOR:
    Jordan,

    I have no problem with people saying this is their opinion and defending that opinion. It is what makes this such a great blog. I just think that these opinions are often being stated as facts. In crafting their opinions some posters have forgotten they are guessing.

    I started off to point out that LT isn’t guessing at least not as much as those who are evaluating the trade in real time on a longitudinal basis. In order to do that it was first necessary to make the case that given the recency of the trade and the confounding factors it is impossible to say with any certainty who won or lost the trade. That shouldn’t be taken to mean that you aren’t entitled to have an opinion, even a strong one. Just that any data presented, pro or con, is currently without the kind of significance needed to warrant anyone changing their opinion.

    That would include our host.

    That “some posters have forgotten they are guessing” but “LT isn’t guessing” is incoherent. Both sides would be guessing at the future based on what they know of the present. Unless you’re going with LT’s idea that trades can only be evaluated with the information available at the time they’re made. In which case I agree with LT: it’s a mostly uninteresting story.

    Also, that one season that’s passed strengthens the statistical picture of Hall, i.e., decreases the uncertainty on who the player is. It doesn’t throw the picture out of whack. I can go with the we can’t rely on one season’s worth of data thing if that season was unusual. But Hall’s last season wasn’t unusual. If you were projecting the rest of his career and you had him returning to over a point per game or 70 point seasons, you’d be going against the odds. You could be right, but you’re probably wrong. This information, to me, has a material impact on assessing the value that was exchanged in The Trade. It helps me form my opinion. If next season provides conflicting information, I’ll revise my opinion. Opinions that I have and I can’t change feel like the chains that Jacob Marley wears for his visit to Scrooge.

  54. who says:

    Lowetide:
    For those who don’t know my opinion on the trade, allow me to repeat what is a mostly uninteresting story.

    1. I stated at the time it was a poor trade in terms of value. My opinion has never changed because the value in that moment has not changed.
    2. I have acknowledged,and honestly I didn’t get much pushback, that PC had to address the loss of Jeff Petry. He did it thrice (Larsson, Russell, Benning) and that’s an impressive set of upgrades.
    3. I haven’t changed my mind on the trade, since the time it was made has passed. That said, you can certainly see the thinking behind it. As that isn’t part of the trade, we can’t include it but that is a consideration.
    4. Larsson has been an excellent addition to the team and it’s clear Klefbom benefited from Larsson (and I think vice versa).

    Peter Chiarelli could win this trade for things like Hall’s offense hitting a plateau (players do peak early offensively), Larsson’s steady play, injury and all manner of things. In the passing of time, we may come to agree that Chiarelli made out very well on the trade.

    None of which changes my original opinion, because it requires going back in time to change it. The Hall trade was a net loss at the time, considering all things. That does not mean the Oilers won’t get the better of the deal, because there are all manner of forces writing the story every day.

    I’ve written this before, probably shall again. I encourage you to respect my opinion even as I do yours. That’s kind of the point of

    If we evaluate this trade on the day it happened I saw it as an even trade. A good hockey trade for both teams.
    All I knew about Adam Larrson was that he was a young, big, right shot dman with a high draft pedigree who was playing first pairing minutes in NJ.
    Even if you valued Hall higher than I did there were some additional benefits to the oilers that should have moved the needle closer to even.
    1. CAP SPACE. 1.8 mil a year is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when we now see Chia trading pieces like Eberle just to create more cap space.
    2 . CONTRACT LENGTH. We get an extra year of Larsson on that cap friendly deal.
    3. AGE OF PLAYER. I believe Larsson is two years younger. If we accept that dmen peak 2 years later than forwards we essentially got a player who is 4 years younger on his development curve which should give him considerably more room for improvement than the player we traded away.
    All of these things were known on the day of the trade so they should be factored in to the equation.
    Not interested in changing anyone’s mind, just wanted to state all the known factors on trade day.

  55. blainer says:

    Lowetide: My guess is that people want finality and to move on, and it irritates when not everyone joins the chorus. I expect this trade will fracture the fan base and have said (and believe) even a Stanley will not close the wound. I’ve had my frustrations over folks not moving on, but have reminded myself it’s not my place to tell people how to think.

    For me, I’m delighted to have Larsson on the team. I was also wrong in pushing the Subban deal, a trade that would have left the team without Draisaitl and Nurse (or Klef) plus No. 4 in 2016 (receiving MTL’s selection).

    Ya we really dodged a bullet on Subban and what would have become a much deeper wound than even the Hall trade IMO.

    Sometimes the best deals are the ones that fall apart.. The Clarkson deal is another big break we received from the leafs..

    Although I do see an Edmonton Toronto final coming within the next two to three years as they are not far behind us.

  56. Dirk Dangler says:

    My opinion is that it is impossible for individuals within a group to share the same concrete valuation of trade items of any sort, if the values of each item are not pre-established and agreed upon as a group. It’s why we have money. We use it as an intermediate trading tool to acquire assets whose values have been pre-established.

    Trading hockey assets is inner circle stuff, where the values are not pre-established and agreed upon by the collective group at the start of the year, or asset career. The values of assets are being determined instantaneously by those trading. That is the trading process. Chia and Shero determined the value of their assets, at the time, for their individual circumstances and needs.

    To state that the value of one asset is higher than another is opinion. Chia arrived at the conclusion that based on his trading position at the time, the values of the assets were equal, or at least equal enough to pursue the trade.

    He determined that his need for Larsson at the time was equal to the payment of Hall. If he didn’t think the value was fair, then we would not have made that deal. I’m sure he would have made any alternative deal available at the time where he acquired more assets or assets of higher value for the same cost. Any sane man would.

    The problem is timing as it relates to need, and thus asset value.

    Essentially, Chia’s need to improve the team within a limited timeframe (his job and retaining McDavid depend on it) caused his need for RHD to increase at the time. He spent assets that would enable that improvement. The assets which went out , and thus the perceived value of the trade, were established by those GMs who are inner circle and have the ability to trade hockey assets.

    Our outside criticisms lend no clarity to the value of hockey assets.

  57. Chachi says:

    Georges: Opinions that I have and I can’t change feel like the chains that Jacob Marley wears for his visit to Scrooge.

    “I wear the chain I forged in life,” replied the Ghost. “I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it.” “I also wore a track suit to the press conference when I made The Trade”

  58. godot10 says:

    We really need the season to start and for McLellan to screw up “mediocrely” so we can get off the Hall trade and I can get back into business! -).

    That or a Russell groin pull in the pre-season.

    All Hall and no McLellan makes godot10 a dull boy.
    All Hall and no McLellan makes godot10 a dull boy.
    All Hall and no McLellan makes godot10 a dull boy.
    All Hall and no McLellan makes godot10 a dull boy.

  59. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Lowetide: Kinger: I have explained this, you choose not to accept my explanation. It seems we are not going to be able to settle this with words and I am too old to duel.

    Rocky Raccoon checked into his room
    Only to find Gideon’s bible
    Rocky had come equipped with a gun
    To shoot off the legs of his rival

  60. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Lowetide: I stated at the time it was a poor trade in terms of value. My opinion has never changed because the value in that moment has not changed.

    Interested in your take of the Ken Hodge for Rick Middleton trade a) at the moment you heard of it and b) subsequently.

  61. Bank Shot says:

    Damn.

    Flames hired the stats.hockeyanalysis.com guy.

    That was a pretty good site.

    Not too much left out there now.

  62. 106 and 106 says:

    Lowetide,

    Let’s move the discussion forward, people.

  63. leadfarmer says:

    Bank Shot:
    Damn.

    Flames hired the stats.hockeyanalysis.com guy.

    That was a pretty good site.

    Not too much left out there now.

    No!!!!!

    All the good sites drop like flies. War on ice. Corsica hockey. Stats.hockeyanalysis.

    What’s left out there other than Woodmoney? Anything left with GSAA

  64. Lowetide says:

    Bruce McCurdy: Interested in your take of the Ken Hodge for Rick Middleton trade a) at the moment you heard of it and b) subsequently.

    This is from memory, but I believe that was a John Ferguson trade. He was (iirc) trying to get Phil Esposito his winger back, but Middleton was a substantial young player. I was probably conflicted, because Hodge was a damn good player. Of course, after the deal Middleton blossomed from being a promising 50-point man to the impact player he immediately became.

  65. Bag of Pucks says:

    Lowetide: This is from memory, but I believe that was a John Ferguson trade. He was (iirc) trying to get Phil Esposito his winger back, but Middleton was a substantial young player. I was probably conflicted, because Hodge wasa damn good player. Of course, after the deal Middleton blossomed from being a promising 50-point man to the impact player he immediately became.

    Speaking of classic era Bruins, saw this recently and it made me throw up in my mouth a little.

    http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/in-the-cards-looking-back-on-orrs-blackhawk-days

  66. Bag of Pucks says:

    So, I finally get where LT is coming from on the Hall trade.

    If Hall is premium ocean front real estate in CA and Larsson is a lamborghini, you never declare a trade btw them as a win for the sports car – just empirically doesn’t make sense.

    Now, the property can break off and sink into the ocean in which case you’re feeling pretty chuffed about your Lambo now, but all that means is Chia got lucky. Doesn’t mean he was exercising sound judgement at the time of the transaction.

    That sound about right, LT?

    Unfortunately for Chia, he really really needed that Lambo and the Sheros of the world were not lining up for his lakefront cottages (RNH, Ebs).

  67. Jordan says:

    Lowetide,

    VOR,

    Thank you both for clarifying. Love that this is a safe place for thoughtful discourse.

    Also glad this didn’t become a tire fire today. 😀

  68. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Bank Shot:
    Damn.

    Flames hired the stats.hockeyanalysis.com guy.

    That was a pretty good site.

    Not too much left out there now.

    This is a big loss. It seems like every year we lose one or more of the newer sites, but this year two old standbys in HockeyAnalysis and BehindtheNet have gone off the grid, exacerbating what was already a big problem for advanced stats — the lack of continuity, especially in the public domain.

    David Johnson took his share of grief from many other analysts for his maverick viewpoints on some core issues, but his work was founded in a hugely useful and reliable database that will be sorely missed.

  69. Georges says:

    Bruce McCurdy: This is a big loss. It seems like every year we lose one or more of the newer sites, but this year two old standbys in HockeyAnalysis and BehindtheNet have gone off the grid, exacerbating what was already a big problem for advanced stats — the lack of continuity, especially in the public domain.

    David Johnson took his share of grief from many other analysts for his maverick viewpoints on some core issues, but his work was founded in a hugely useful and reliable database that will be sorely missed.

    Yep. It was the go to site for WOWY’s. PuckIQ has WOWY’s for 16-17 but not in David’s format which was very useful. I don’t know if anyone else out there is doing WOWY’s.

    On the plus side, this expands the arable land for opinions.

  70. Bag of Pucks says:

    Bruce McCurdy: This is a big loss. It seems like every year we lose one or more of the newer sites, but this year two old standbys in HockeyAnalysis and BehindtheNet have gone off the grid, exacerbating what was already a big problem for advanced stats — the lack of continuity, especially in the public domain.

    David Johnson took his share of grief from many other analysts for his maverick viewpoints on some core issues, but his work was founded in a hugely useful and reliable database that will be sorely missed.

    On the positive side, want to work for an NHL team? Build a deep analytics site with a good UI and that seems to be half the battle.

  71. Scungilli Slushy says:

    I known there are a few finance / investment guys around here.

    I am a thinking about trading some stocks straight across. The ones I own are at $35, strong dividends, good management on the moderate risk taking side, with a history of winning more risks than losing and strong looking potential ahead. There are solid hopes for increasing share price.

    The deal would be for a stock at $25, a stable company with a solid old school stable management, below average dividends, and a concern that the market may be moving away from conservative operators, but the company should carry on even if it ends up mid pack in the industry. The outlook for share price is most likely flat.

    Should I do this?

  72. jtblack says:

    Jordan,

    +1.

    I also Love the Lineup LT has with 3 dynamic Centres.

  73. Lowetide says:

    Bag of Pucks:
    So, I finally get where LT is coming from on the Hall trade.

    If Hall is premium ocean front real estate in CA and Larsson is a lamborghini, you never declare a trade btw them as a win for the sports car – just empirically doesn’t make sense.

    Now, the property can break off and sink into the ocean in which case you’re feeling pretty chuffed about your Lambo now, but all that means is Chia got lucky. Doesn’t mean he was exercising sound judgement at the time of the transaction.

    That sound about right, LT?

    Unfortunately for Chia, he really really needed that Lambo and the Sheros of the world were not lining up for his lakefront cottages (RNH, Ebs).

    I think the gap between the house next to Cher’s and the Countach in the driveway was enough to insist on keeping the beach house.

  74. VOR says:

    Georges,

    You said,

    “That “some posters have forgotten they are guessing” but “LT isn’t guessing” is incoherent. Both sides would be guessing at the future based on what they know of the present. Unless you’re going with LT’s idea that trades can only be evaluated with the information available at the time they’re made. In which case I agree with LT: it’s a mostly uninteresting story.”

    My point was exactly that Lowetide’s position, because it has a periodic interval of zero, is more accurate than any longitudinally adjusted analysis can be at this point and possibly even in the future. LT as far as I can tell wasn’t guessing when he said the trade was a loss of value when it happened. He was expressing a well established position in the hockey world, one he agreed with.

    Anyone who is doing an analysis that involves future forecasting is guessing and that creates methodological issues. I get your point that Lowetide’s approach isn’t a very interesting way to go about assessing the trade. But it is methodologically pure.

    The problem I believe I see in some of the attempts to analyse the trade in light of the events of one year are afflicted by what I am now calling Blainer Syndrome:

    In this thread, above Blainer says

    “I am predicting a very big year for Hall. I think he stays healthy and they put together a great PP with Hershier Hall and that Zacha breaks out this year as well.

    Watch out for that trade should never have been made talk here when that happens !!”

    This highlights the absurdity of saying since Edmonton got better and New Jersey got worse Edmonton won the Hall/Larsson trade. Which is, you have to admit, a fairly common argument here the last little while.

    But consider Blainer’s prediction. Except change who gets hot. What if Cory Schneider plays this year to his career SV% average and New Jersey makes the playoffs and Edmonton loses Oscar Klefbom to injury for the majority of the year and Andreji Sekera takes a full season to get back up to speed and Edmonton misses the playoffs? Did Hall suddenly become a better player? Did Larsson become a worse player? Did New Jersey win the trade hands down?

    I’d argue team effects need to be removed from any analysis.

    And if you think about it, and I am about to quote you again doing exactly this, a lot of people are making assumptions about Hall, Larsson as well for that matter, not that you are guilty of that.

    “Also, that one season that’s passed strengthens the statistical picture of Hall, i.e., decreases the uncertainty on who the player is. It doesn’t throw the picture out of whack. I can go with the we can’t rely on one season’s worth of data thing if that season was unusual. But Hall’s last season wasn’t unusual. If you were projecting the rest of his career and you had him returning to over a point per game or 70 point seasons, you’d be going against the odds. You could be right, but you’re probably wrong. This information, to me, has a material impact on assessing the value that was exchanged in The Trade. It helps me form my opinion. If next season provides conflicting information, I’ll revise my opinion. Opinions that I have and I can’t change feel like the chains that Jacob Marley wears for his visit to Scrooge.”

    Lets start with the a priori assumption in your first sentence. How exactly do you know you are seeing a career arc and not team effects? You have made the assumption, with no obvious proof, that you can see Hall’s career arc. Am I misunderstanding because I read it as implicit in the paragraph I just quoted?

    Then you offer up odds. I am really curious how you generated these odds.

    The literature on age and point scoring is all about the average age not the median age of the player when they get their most points. Can you quote a reputable source that offers up median age for best scoring year of a players career?

    Why does that matter? Scoring versus age is a long tail distribution which means the median may well lay to the right of the average. You need the median to set those odds you are talking about since that is the point where half of all players will have their best year before that age and half will have their best year after that age. Median performance is what we need for setting odds is it not, rather than averages?

    We then need to provide some context for arguing that Hall falls into one of the two categories, that is he has already had his best scoring year or his best scoring year lies ahead of him.

    To ask this another way, go to hockey reference and look at the players Hall is compared to in the career to date section – two of the first three, Lemaire and Getzlaf had their best seasons at 29 and 28. How do you know that isn’t the future for Hall? My point is you can’t. You are guessing. And with out median data for a very large sample of the population to which Hall belongs you can’t even hazard a guess which category Hall is in.

    Yet these theoretical assumptions you are making are the basis of your (by your own statement) assessment of the trade. You also are suffering from a significant post hoc ergo propter hoc problem. You say if next year provides conflicting information you will change your opinion. That is you seem to be saying that you will assume any new data pattern is tied to the “value” of the players in the trade. Don’t you need to establish some parameters for figuring out if the new data is actually tied to the intrinsic value of the two players to their respective teams?

    Which brings us to my last point and then I will go away and shut up. I have yet to see anybody work out a logically and statistically robust way of assigning commensurable value to these two players. Without it you can’t begin to evaluate the trade fairly.

  75. Scungilli Slushy says:

    VOR: I have yet to see anybody work out a logically and statistically robust way of assigning commensurable value to these two players. Without it you can’t begin to evaluate the trade fairly.

    You can evaluate the trade fairly. You can’t at this point make a statistics based argument fairly. There is a difference.

    This entire LT Hall debate comes down to individuals not accepting the premise of the statement. It is very simple when accepted for exactly what it says and has no opinion about who comes out ahead in long run.

    Being loose with words and what they mean individually and in a statement causes the humans a lot of problems.

  76. VOR says:

    Scungilli slushy,

    I mean no disrespect but I have no idea how you evaluate the trade without using statistics or statistical inferences? Doesn’t it just come down to “I think” or “my opinion is”. I am having trouble seeing how you can compare apples (Larsson as a member of the Edmonton Oilers) to oranges (Hall as a member of the New Jersey Devils) even with statistics. How can you do it without?

    Maybe I am misunderstanding and you are arguing that some statistical analysis, however inadequate is better than none. In which case, we encounter new methodological challenges. How do we rank the various statistics and data points an analysis might include so as to make sure the argument is as robust as possible? How in other words, do we rank the arguments?

  77. Scungilli Slushy says:

    VOR:
    Scungilli slushy,

    I mean no disrespect but I have no idea how you evaluate the trade without using statistics or statistical inferences? Doesn’t it just come down to “I think” or “my opinion is”. I am having trouble seeing how you can compare apples (Larsson as a member of the Edmonton Oilers) to oranges (Hall as a member of the New Jersey Devils) even with statistics. How can you do it without?

    Maybe I am misunderstanding and you are arguing that some statistical analysis, however inadequate is better than none. In which case, we encounter new methodological challenges. How do we rank the various statistics and data points an analysis might include so as to make sure the argument is as robust as possible? How in other words, do we rank the arguments?

    The world operates on people’s opinions. I don’t remember if you are a statistician but an uncle of mine is. The idea comes before the numbers he says. The numbers should support what we see. Such as when the spawning stats set thought shot quality wasn’t germane, or face offs, qual comp etc because they couldn’t define it with very limited numbers.

    All science starts with an idea that is then verified with research. How can humans have functioned and continue to if they can’t trust their intuitions, impressions, evaluations of things.

    Sather was a master horse trader pre stats. I would think a majority of pro hockey people have an idea of what they like and if progressing they back those impressions up with some system of analysis.

  78. Kinger_Oil.redux says:

    VOR,

    VOR:

    Vor – I really enjoy these discussions. LT says: “My opinion has never changed because the value in that moment has not changed”. You rightly point out “that Lowetide’s position, because it has a periodic interval of zero, is more accurate than any longitudinally adjusted analysis can be at this point and possibly even in the future”

    -You have accurately characterized his position. It’s just the wrong position however: not supported by the purpose of a trade. Trades can be “evaluated” on the day, to “guess” who wins and losses. But it’s the actual results going forward that matter.

    – You say that it is methodologically pure. That he won’t revise his opinion based on future results is not the basis for a discussion. I guess I shouldn’t bring it up, given that stance, which is nonsensical.

    – I like how you conclude:.” I have yet to see anybody work out a logically and statistically robust way of assigning commensurable value to these two players. Without it you can’t begin to evaluate the trade fairly.”

    – That’s why its such a great discussion. You have miscaracterized my position. I do not know if the trade was good or not, but I have my bias. I don’t agree that it was a massive loss on the day it was traded. If Hall is healthy and scores at his rate from that great year, and Larsson plateaus, it is an awful trade

    – I agree that Hall was a better LW scorer than Larsson was a RHD, in terms of percieved pecking order in the league. I don’t know how to quantify what the $1.8MM in cap savings, and extra year of control of a younger player is worth in relation to Hall, and the difference in positions

    – I do know though that to declare the trade a big loss on the day of the trade is not a rigorous analysis, especially when that analysis is further conveyed by: “it does not matter what happens in the future”

    – So I think many over valued Hall, and what his performance will be going forward. And many also under-valued the skill-set that Larsson has and his performance going forward, and the $1.8MM is not fully quantified.

  79. VOR says:

    Scungilli slushy/Kinger_Oil.Redux,

    I would agree with the concept that the idea comes before the numbers. However, what you are left with as I understand your argument is either: “I am right and you are wrong” or “and the survey says.” Scungilli slushy, as I read it you are saying that either individual or collective thinking is the best way to go in the absence of statistically robust arguments. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

    This was how humanity advanced for millennia so it is hard to argue against this idea.

    However, and this is a big caveat, the reasoning used to advance understanding needs to be either exceedingly creative, exceedingly sound logically, or both. This is because our eyes, it has been shown again and again, trick us into believing things that aren’t so and yet it is what most people use as a basis for their opinions. This not to say that opinions formed by your own personal observation aren’t valid. Not at all.

    I am just saying you need to think about what you observe, about the contexts of your observations, about how they might fit into a larger theoretical framework, if you want to move on from “I’m right and you are wrong.” You also need to be tolerant of other “opinions” and competing theories. Yet, you also need to be prepared to push back against others opinions (hopefully without giving offense) if they don’t mesh with your thinking. From discussions (close readings) of reflective and well reasoned arguments humans have shown a remarkable ability to accumulate useful knowledge.

    That said, I am not sure that old timey onion belt tools like formal logic, rhetoric, debate, hypothesis formation, and close reading/listening are skills that are valued or practiced much anymore.

    I wear many hats but I am a mathematical modeler most of each work day. For example, as I write this I am taking a break from working on a forecasting project. When my formulas are complete they should better forecast fertilizer prices and usage across Canada at least. This is a huge problem for the agricultural industry and both the prices and usage are at the mercy of global forces and more localized trends.

    It is really not simple and straight forward and I am not just relying on numbers. I have talked with many industry insiders, gotten access to forecasts by several major fertilizer companies, and spent months meeting with farmers individually and in small groups as well as spending days hanging our with agronomists while they offered their clients fertilizer advice and consulting about soil quality. I have also read hundreds of research papers.

    I think I am close to a workable set of formulas but you never know until the future unfolds and you see how you did.

    Essentially, I work in the future, I value the future. I just understand based on years of experience how frigging hard it can be to predict that future. When I see great certainty in any prediction I start wondering how much thought has gone into conjuring up that prediction (not that hard work makes someone a better predictor of the future God knows – there is a great deal of intuition and standing on the shoulders of giants involved in getting it right – and yes guessing).

    I started out to make the point that Lowetide’s critics, especially you Kinger, seem to be failing to appreciate that by picking a time T = 0 and sticking to that position in the face of other evidence Lowetide has captured his thinking (and I think a lot of people in the hockey world’s thinking) about the Hall/Larsson trade at the moment it happened.

    By the way, in case it isn’t obvious I have absolutely no opinion on the trade’s goodness/badness etc. I can’t figure out for the life of me how the heck you would actually figure such a thing out. In the absence of such an analytical tool Lowetide’s certainty about the state of things at the time of the trade has an undeniable appeal.

  80. Georges says:

    VOR:
    Georges,

    My point was exactly that Lowetide’s position, because it has a periodic interval of zero, is more accurate than any longitudinally adjusted analysis can be at this point and possibly even in the future. LT as far as I can tell wasn’t guessing when he said the trade was a loss of value when it happened. He was expressing a well established position in the hockey world, one he agreed with.

    Anyone who is doing an analysis that involves future forecasting is guessing and that creates methodological issues. I get your point that Lowetide’s approach isn’t a very interesting way to go about assessing the trade. But it is methodologically pure.

    Loss of value means the hockey world knew the value of these two players at the time of the trade and LT is right because he agreed with the hockey world. You say this is “methodologically pure” without revealing the methodology by which the hockey world assigned value to the two players. But you later say:

    Which brings us to my last point and then I will go away and shut up. I have yet to see anybody work out a logically and statistically robust way of assigning commensurable value to these two players. Without it you can’t begin to evaluate the trade fairly.

    So if you’ve yet to see anybody get it right, how is it that you know the hockey world (and LT) had it right on the day of the trade?

    In this thread, above Blainer says

    “I am predicting a very big year for Hall. I think he stays healthy and they put together a great PP with Hershier Hall and that Zacha breaks out this year as well.

    Watch out for that trade should never have been made talk here when that happens !!”

    This highlights the absurdity of saying since Edmonton got better and New Jersey got worse Edmonton won the Hall/Larsson trade. Which is, you have to admit, a fairly common argument here the last little while.

    Blainer is making a prediction. It’s not data. The season that’s happened is data.

    NJD gave up a 22.5 minutes a game 1RD and got back a 19 minutes a game 1LW.

    Oilers gave up an 18 minutes a game 2LW and got back a 20 minutes a game 1 or 2 RD.

    NJD had a worse season statistically, offensively and defensively. Oilers had a better season statistically, offensively and defensively.

    All numbers.

    I suppose you could say that it’s absurd to think the trade had anything to do with that. But, to use your exacting methodological standards, perhaps it’s just as absurd to think the trade had nothing to do with it either? So why talk about anything, really?

    But consider Blainer’s prediction. Except change who gets hot. What if Cory Schneider plays this year to his career SV% average and New Jersey makes the playoffs and Edmonton loses Oscar Klefbom to injury for the majority of the year and Andreji Sekera takes a full season to get back up to speed and Edmonton misses the playoffs? Did Hall suddenly become a better player? Did Larsson become a worse player? Did New Jersey win the trade hands down?

    I’d argue team effects need to be removed from any analysis.

    Again, you’re describing scenarios (interestingly enough, scenarios that make no mention of the individual performance of our two protagonists). For me, the discussion around who won or lost the trade can only happen in the context of the data that is generated after the trade. Until your speculation becomes data, it doesn’t influence my thinking. Statistics offers the means to test a hypothesis, such as, were the Oilers a better team in 2016-17 than they were in 2015-16, or could the results have been obtained by chance? But I need data to do that work.

    As for “team effects need to be removed from any analysis” I wish you the very best of luck. If you solve that problem in hockey, you are most certainly The Man.

    Lets start with the a priori assumption in your first sentence. How exactly do you know you are seeing a career arc and not team effects? You have made the assumption, with no obvious proof, that you can see Hall’s career arc. Am I misunderstanding because I read it as implicit in the paragraph I just quoted?

    Then you offer up odds. I am really curious how you generated these odds.

    I looked at year by year scoring for forwards since 2005-06 to 2016-17. I looked at the points per game of top scoring forwards as a time series. Hall has fallen from a peak. He’s on a 3-year plateau where his scoring rate is 25% lower than what it used to be. For him to recover to prior levels of scoring, he’d have to be a two-peak player. I’m estimating Hall’s arc by comparing it to the arc of similar players in my dataset. It’s much, much easier for me to see steady decline from a peak than it is to see two peaks. The players who’ve had two peaks didn’t have the drop off that Hall did. Except Getzlaf. And he had just one bad season, not 3. That’s why I believe Hall would be an exception rather than the rule if he reestablishes his early scoring level.

    The literature on age and point scoring is all about the average age not the median age of the player when they get their most points. Can you quote a reputable source that offers up median age for best scoring year of a players career?

    Why does that matter? Scoring versus age is a long tail distribution which means the median may well lay to the right of the average. You need the median to set those odds you are talking about since that is the point where half of all players will have their best year before that age and half will have their best year after that age. Median performance is what we need for setting odds is it not, rather than averages?

    I’m not sure I’m following this. One thing I question: all players. When making inferences about Hall, is it really necessary to include a Jason Chimera who had his best offensive season 13 years into his career? Are the studies you’re reading looking at the entire cohort of NHL players or elite NHL players?

    We then need to provide some context for arguing that Hall falls into one of the two categories, that is he has already had his best scoring year or his best scoring year lies ahead of him.

    To ask this another way, go to hockey reference and look at the players Hall is compared to in the career to date section – two of the first three, Lemaire and Getzlaf had their best seasons at 29 and 28. How do you know that isn’t the future for Hall? My point is you can’t. You are guessing. And with out median data for a very large sample of the population to which Hall belongs you can’t even hazard a guess which category Hall is in.

    Getzlaf had one poor offensive season in the middle of a long run of strong (over a point per game) offensive seasons that ended with his very best season. Getzlaf has substantially outperformed Hall and is a poor comparison. I would hazard a guess that Hall is not in Getzlaf’s category.

    Also, hockey reference uses point shares to calculate similarity scores for players. They don’t just use offensive output. Here’s an interesting quote from an explanation of that system:

    “If you believe that any attempt to attribute team success to individual players is an abomination, then read no further, as this article will be of no interest to you.”

    So if we’re going to bat these things around, then we have to agree that there’s a way to separate and attribute team effects and individual performance.

    Yet these theoretical assumptions you are making are the basis of your (by your own statement) assessment of the trade. You also are suffering from a significant post hoc ergo propter hoc problem. You say if next year provides conflicting information you will change your opinion. That is you seem to be saying that you will assume any new data pattern is tied to the “value” of the players in the trade. Don’t you need to establish some parameters for figuring out if the new data is actually tied to the intrinsic value of the two players to their respective teams?

    Which brings us to my last point and then I will go away and shut up. I have yet to see anybody work out a logically and statistically robust way of assigning commensurable value to these two players. Without it you can’t begin to evaluate the trade fairly.

    Earlier, you seem to agree LT had it right on the trade, meaning his side of the argument knows how to assess player value. But, at the conclusion of saying I don’t know how to assess player value, you wind up saying no one does. That’s worrying.

    I agree it’s tough to be sure on what a player contributes to his team and that what he contributes is his own contribution. I’m winging it. LT’s winging it. i don’t think the numbers I’ve used to support my views are definitive but I believe they’re suggestive. Taken together, I find them persuasive. If I knew how to situate my arguments beyond statistical controversy, I most surely would. But I don’t.

  81. Jaxon says:

    blainer: I’m with ya on this 100%…Just curious.. who would you have selected in that spot ?

    Yup, agreed. I know this want directed at me but this is what I wish they would have drafted:
    22 Conor Timmins (Kristian Vesalainen would have been my 2nd choice)
    82 Nikita A. Popugayev
    84 Matthew Strome
    115 Ostap Safin
    126 Parker Foo
    146 Jordan Hollett
    177 Skyler Brind’Amour
    208 Will Reilly

    Maybe they’d have Spencer Foo, too, if they didn’t pick a RW with their 1st round pick.

  82. Jaxon says:

    Would you rather have one of the highest scoring junorright handed D in history in Conor Timmins and NCAA RW prospect Spencer Foo or Kailer Yamamoto? That may have been the case. Taking a high skill small RW in the first round may have torpedoed Edmonton’s chance at Foo.

  83. Georges says:

    Georges,

    If I knew how to situate my arguments beyond statistical controversy, I most surely would. But I don’t.

    I have to take this back. I don’t know why I’d set up “beyond statistical controversy” as a criteria for assessing my argument. Statistics isn’t a tool for achieving certainty; it’s a tool for dealing with uncertainty. This whole “we can never know” line of thinking misses that point. We work with what we have and if we can’t be right, we try to be less wrong. Probability is like wind in the sails; we want more of it, in our sails. We traded a 2LW for a 1RD. On the day of the trade.

  84. VOR says:

    Georges,

    You seem to have a very imperfect understanding of my argument. I know this because you attribute things to me that I never said. You do it over and over again.

    I must have done a truly terrible job of explaining myself.

    Since in the next thread scungilli slushy rants at me. Again it is about things I never said.

    As far as I can tell the two of you don’t actually agree on what you think I said.

    But you do agree it pissed you off and that I am completely wrong.

  85. Georges says:

    VOR,

    Well, I did quote what you wrote in your post and try to respond point by point. I must have done a truly terrible job of explaining myself too. I thought my response was mild and on topic. But it came off as pissed off and confused. Oh well… Happy Friday, VOR!

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!
© Copyright - Lowetide.ca