On July 10 2014 02:43 QuanticHawk wrote: Hawks are going to be looking to move someone soon. 10.5per/8yrs for each is something like 28% of the cap this year. That will obviously go down in a couple years, but christ those bickel and Crawford deals look extra bad now. Someone like Sharp, Hossa, or Seabrook might be moving soon. Just without Bickel, who is a middle of the road 3rd liner, they'd be just about ok. Much better than losing one of their really good players who are on good deals. On the plus side, Chicago has proven that they're really good at finding affordable talent in the bottom of their roster to give them the roster balance that makes them so successful. Basically, the opposite of Pittsburgh.
Lou Lam thinks a Schneider extension is coming real soon. Rumor is supposedly in the $6m/7yr range. That would be great for them to lock that up. And if some of their recent draft picks pan out the Devils might be really good again soon.
Why wouldnt they just buyout Bickel, he had one good playoff round when they won it all and got paid off that hype.
On July 09 2014 22:53 sharkeyanti wrote: Even if Toronto made their defense better (which they certainly can, it's a horrible system), they could what? Maybe break even in possession? Offense and defense are inextricably linked. The fastest thing on the ice is the puck, and when you value players who can find space to move/pass that puck towards the other team's net you beat all the other teams that value hitting, shot blocking, and the like.
I still don't think you get what I'm saying. Corsi% is not possession. Toronto may actually have ok possession. I never watch their games so I don't really know, but looking at statistics it's pretty clear that they have a major defending issue. Of course there's always room for improvement offensively, but it's pretty clear that their main problem is how they play without the puck, rather than how they play with the puck. That's why I disagree with the idea that it's a puck possession problem. Puck possession might be a problem, but it's not the main problem. The first thing I would look at is the coaching, and then the D and the checking line. Adding more 2nd or 3rd line players is the last thing I would do, unless it's a well established two-way player. It's true that a good offense helps your Corsi Against, to some extent, but the reverse is also true. A good forechecking team that has good positioning will regain the puck more often, and this will help them create more offense. Since their defense is extraordinarily bad, it makes no sense to not focus on defense. You could make an argument for them needing both offense and defense, but their defense looks a lot more alarming, and it's possible that their bad defense might be holding back their offense. Let's be realistic and focus on the obvious flaw first.
On July 05 2014 10:20 StarStruck wrote: I think you would have to watch him actually play that last season to really judge him man. Honestly he was one of our best players that season. He actually brings a lot to the table. He's not supposed to rack up the points. Darcy was a liability. Leo on the other hand wasn't in that season with the Leafs. Yes 3mil is a steep price but he brings the intangibles much like Carl Gunnarsson which a lot of people don't really understand.
he's a 4th liner making $3m on a team that isn't in a great cap situation to begin with. He's good at what he does, but what he does is not worth $3m.
I highly doubt you've seen enough of him to be saying what he does and doesn't bring to the team. Then again I've only seen him play one season for us and if he can do what he did in that same season I'm telling you the guy brings it and finishes every hit. He gets under guys skin without even flapping his gums unlike Darcy Tucker. The guy knows his role and he's very good at it and getting more guys to take penalties rather than himself taking a dumb one. I'd agree with the other guy in saying 2 to 2.5mil is more than fair and the fact of the matter is he wanted to come back to the Leafs. Also every little cocksucker is overpaid in the League so this is the norm and fuck Clarkson I never agreed with that deal to begin with. He's been a liability ever since he came. Leo on the other hand hasn't.
At the end of the day, if you have beef with the Leo deal it should go back to the fact that the guy actually wanted to not only return to the NHL but return to Toronto and Nonis didn't abuse that fact when it came to negotiations. Why the heck wouldn't be take that multi year deal at 3 mil? He had no reason to refuse such an offer. Nonis could have got a better deal.
$2m is still the upper end of what a 4th liner with one year of nhl experience should be making. $3m+ is for established third liners who are good for 40ish pts a year or more (mason raymond) or highly touted prospects who have proven something but havent quite done enough to earn more yet (kadri). hitting and pking are not worth $3m per for four years. and his shit stirring ability is totally overstated by leafs fans. judging by the things ive read thus far, it would seem that people forgot Komarov's +6 was dwarfed by Kadri's +30 that year. kadri led the team again this year with 19.
of course i wouldnt blame komarov because anyone in his shoes would sign a cotnract when they're blatantly getting overpaid. All I am saying is that it is a stupid deal for nonis. He's a good fourth liner getting paid like a third. The only way it becomes an ok deal is if Komarov suddenly turns into a 40point or 20-20 player.
the problem with the leafs (their forwards at least) isnt that they get bullied. it is because their system means skill guys like kessel, jvr, lupul, kadri do not have the puck on their stick as much as they should. the fix isnt to get better defensive forwards. it is to sign cheaper skill guys like raymond and kulemin, and let them play to their strengths. the more the forwards have possession, the less the leafs mediocre d is exposed, the less shots they face. it's not a coincidence that, for several years now, almost all of the top teams have also been very good possession teams.
You guys really need to stop equaling corsi% with possession, because it's not the same thing. It's the +/- stat for shots. All it tells you is that you shoot more than you get shot at.
Toronto had the worst "Corsi Against" in the league. Their "Corsi For" was not good, but it was ok, which when put in the context of their poor Corsi Against is actually quite good. Clearly they have the capacity to create shot opportunities. Their major problem seems to be that they grant an enormous amount of shot opportunities to their opponents. The most logical conclusion you can make out of that is that they have major issues with defensive positioning. New Jersey and Los Angeles have the best Corsi Against in the league, and those are defensive teams that stays at home and doesn't give their opponents much room to create quality chances. This is why they have a good Corsi Against, because they're good at forcing their opponents to hold the puck and pass it around, rather than shoot. This is how SJ was behaving against LA.
Toronto seems to be the opposite of LA and NJ. So what they need to work on is their defensive positioning and discipline. Maybe their forwards needs to be more defensively responsible, or maybe their D is just crap defensively, you cannot tell what the exact problem is just by looking at the stats, but there's no doubt that Toronto's issue is their defense.
people who follow these stats know it isnt striaght up possession. but, as stated, it is very closely correlated, and stands in as a proxy. that's why it is constantly used as a possession stat.
also, i'm not sure where you're getting your stats. toronto's cf was 26th in the league. that's bad. their numbers are the way they are because, as you stated, the defense sucks, and that is exacerbated by a system that relies on the rush and dump and chase. they create more work for themselves by giving away possession due to their crappy system.
la also has one of the best cf in the league, so describing them simply as a great defensive team is wrong. theyre a great defensive team that benefits from an offense that controls the puck for long stretches. new jersey plays very similarly, except that they don't have anyone who ever actually shoots the puck
LA having a top 2 defense doesn't mean they have bad offense. I would definately say though that their Corsi For makes them look more offensively skilled than they actually are, because it's inflated by their defense. But I would say the opposite is also true for teams like SJ and Chicago. LA is so skilled defensively, and good at regaining the puck that they don't need to be as sharp as other teams when it comes to building up offense. If they lose the puck, they just steal it back. And SJ and Chicago is skilled enough offensively that they don't let their opponents hold the puck much, which certainly helps them maintain a low Corsi Against. So, although Corsi For is mainly affected by offense, and Corsi Against, mainly by defense, they kind of grow into eachother, which has been pointed out.
I think Corsi% is a very relevant stat to use to measure the strength of teams, but don't use it as a substitute for puck possession. It's misleading and it leads to misunderstandings, a few of them happened in this thread, before I realized that you were using Corsi% and puck possession interchangeably.
On July 10 2014 05:54 L1ghtning wrote: I think Corsi% is a very relevant stat to use to measure the strength of teams, but don't use it as a substitute for puck possession. It's misleading and it leads to misunderstandings, a few of them happened in this thread, before I realized that you were using Corsi% and puck possession interchangeably.
Corsi and puck possession aren't the same thing; i'm surprised this is even up for debate.
Again, Corsi is used as a proxy for possession. It is not one and the same, but the correlation is quite high. Apologies if I've been unclear in my usage of possession/Corsi. I'll definitely admit to using the two interchangeably. Still, the main thing I'd like to emphasize is that shot differential statistics incorporate both offensive and defensive principles. You can use various methods to explain why a given player has a certain differential (usage, percentage of shifts started in specific zones).
With Toronto, they have an incredibly bad shot differential, and have a horrible ratio of defensive zone draws to offensive zone draws. These stats are not literally possession, but are highly related to it. If you start in your d-zone significantly more than in the offensive zone - in addition to being bad at pushing the puck forward - you will allow lots of shots and lots of goals. The defensive systems are bad for sure, but that's not the primary issue.
On July 09 2014 22:53 sharkeyanti wrote: Even if Toronto made their defense better (which they certainly can, it's a horrible system), they could what? Maybe break even in possession? Offense and defense are inextricably linked. The fastest thing on the ice is the puck, and when you value players who can find space to move/pass that puck towards the other team's net you beat all the other teams that value hitting, shot blocking, and the like.
I still don't think you get what I'm saying. Corsi% is not possession. Toronto may actually have ok possession. I never watch their games so I don't really know, but looking at statistics it's pretty clear that they have a major defending issue. Of course there's always room for improvement offensively, but it's pretty clear that their main problem is how they play without the puck, rather than how they play with the puck. That's why I disagree with the idea that it's a puck possession problem. Puck possession might be a problem, but it's not the main problem. The first thing I would look at is the coaching, and then the D and the checking line. Adding more 2nd or 3rd line players is the last thing I would do, unless it's a well established two-way player. It's true that a good offense helps your Corsi Against, to some extent, but the reverse is also true. A good forechecking team that has good positioning will regain the puck more often, and this will help them create more offense. Since their defense is extraordinarily bad, it makes no sense to not focus on defense. You could make an argument for them needing both offense and defense, but their defense looks a lot more alarming, and it's possible that their bad defense might be holding back their offense. Let's be realistic and focus on the obvious flaw first.
On July 05 2014 10:20 StarStruck wrote: I think you would have to watch him actually play that last season to really judge him man. Honestly he was one of our best players that season. He actually brings a lot to the table. He's not supposed to rack up the points. Darcy was a liability. Leo on the other hand wasn't in that season with the Leafs. Yes 3mil is a steep price but he brings the intangibles much like Carl Gunnarsson which a lot of people don't really understand.
he's a 4th liner making $3m on a team that isn't in a great cap situation to begin with. He's good at what he does, but what he does is not worth $3m.
I highly doubt you've seen enough of him to be saying what he does and doesn't bring to the team. Then again I've only seen him play one season for us and if he can do what he did in that same season I'm telling you the guy brings it and finishes every hit. He gets under guys skin without even flapping his gums unlike Darcy Tucker. The guy knows his role and he's very good at it and getting more guys to take penalties rather than himself taking a dumb one. I'd agree with the other guy in saying 2 to 2.5mil is more than fair and the fact of the matter is he wanted to come back to the Leafs. Also every little cocksucker is overpaid in the League so this is the norm and fuck Clarkson I never agreed with that deal to begin with. He's been a liability ever since he came. Leo on the other hand hasn't.
At the end of the day, if you have beef with the Leo deal it should go back to the fact that the guy actually wanted to not only return to the NHL but return to Toronto and Nonis didn't abuse that fact when it came to negotiations. Why the heck wouldn't be take that multi year deal at 3 mil? He had no reason to refuse such an offer. Nonis could have got a better deal.
$2m is still the upper end of what a 4th liner with one year of nhl experience should be making. $3m+ is for established third liners who are good for 40ish pts a year or more (mason raymond) or highly touted prospects who have proven something but havent quite done enough to earn more yet (kadri). hitting and pking are not worth $3m per for four years. and his shit stirring ability is totally overstated by leafs fans. judging by the things ive read thus far, it would seem that people forgot Komarov's +6 was dwarfed by Kadri's +30 that year. kadri led the team again this year with 19.
of course i wouldnt blame komarov because anyone in his shoes would sign a cotnract when they're blatantly getting overpaid. All I am saying is that it is a stupid deal for nonis. He's a good fourth liner getting paid like a third. The only way it becomes an ok deal is if Komarov suddenly turns into a 40point or 20-20 player.
the problem with the leafs (their forwards at least) isnt that they get bullied. it is because their system means skill guys like kessel, jvr, lupul, kadri do not have the puck on their stick as much as they should. the fix isnt to get better defensive forwards. it is to sign cheaper skill guys like raymond and kulemin, and let them play to their strengths. the more the forwards have possession, the less the leafs mediocre d is exposed, the less shots they face. it's not a coincidence that, for several years now, almost all of the top teams have also been very good possession teams.
You guys really need to stop equaling corsi% with possession, because it's not the same thing. It's the +/- stat for shots. All it tells you is that you shoot more than you get shot at.
Toronto had the worst "Corsi Against" in the league. Their "Corsi For" was not good, but it was ok, which when put in the context of their poor Corsi Against is actually quite good. Clearly they have the capacity to create shot opportunities. Their major problem seems to be that they grant an enormous amount of shot opportunities to their opponents. The most logical conclusion you can make out of that is that they have major issues with defensive positioning. New Jersey and Los Angeles have the best Corsi Against in the league, and those are defensive teams that stays at home and doesn't give their opponents much room to create quality chances. This is why they have a good Corsi Against, because they're good at forcing their opponents to hold the puck and pass it around, rather than shoot. This is how SJ was behaving against LA.
Toronto seems to be the opposite of LA and NJ. So what they need to work on is their defensive positioning and discipline. Maybe their forwards needs to be more defensively responsible, or maybe their D is just crap defensively, you cannot tell what the exact problem is just by looking at the stats, but there's no doubt that Toronto's issue is their defense.
people who follow these stats know it isnt striaght up possession. but, as stated, it is very closely correlated, and stands in as a proxy. that's why it is constantly used as a possession stat.
also, i'm not sure where you're getting your stats. toronto's cf was 26th in the league. that's bad. their numbers are the way they are because, as you stated, the defense sucks, and that is exacerbated by a system that relies on the rush and dump and chase. they create more work for themselves by giving away possession due to their crappy system.
la also has one of the best cf in the league, so describing them simply as a great defensive team is wrong. theyre a great defensive team that benefits from an offense that controls the puck for long stretches. new jersey plays very similarly, except that they don't have anyone who ever actually shoots the puck
LA having a top 2 defense doesn't mean they have bad offense. I would definately say though that their Corsi For makes them look more offensively skilled than they actually are, because it's inflated by their defense. But I would say the opposite is also true for teams like SJ and Chicago. LA is so skilled defensively, and good at regaining the puck that they don't need to be as sharp as other teams when it comes to building up offense. If they lose the puck, they just steal it back. And SJ and Chicago is skilled enough offensively that they don't let their opponents hold the puck much, which certainly helps them maintain a low Corsi Against. So, although Corsi For is mainly affected by offense, and Corsi Against, mainly by defense, they kind of grow into eachother, which has been pointed out.
I think Corsi% is a very relevant stat to use to measure the strength of teams, but don't use it as a substitute for puck possession. It's misleading and it leads to misunderstandings, a few of them happened in this thread, before I realized that you were using Corsi% and puck possession interchangeably.
half the problem is where they want their forwards to play in the defensive zone (we lose a step and a half when we try to break out with them below the faceoff circle). Where are most of the shots coming from? From the point. Where do we turnover the most? 5 feet from the blue line. duuuuur.
On July 10 2014 02:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Looks like Kane and Toews have been locked up for 8 years by Chicago 6.3 million per year , each. Deals do not kick in until next year so Chicago is only 2 million over the cap this year.
So Chicago has 12 months to shave at least 5 million off their cap for 2015-16.
$6.3 million would be ridiculous. They're going to get $3.2 million less than Ovechkin when the cap is on the rise? One could argue that Kane is the best playoff performer in the game right now.
Schneider resigns in NJ. $6m per/7 years. They probably could have gotten him cheaper/shorter term if they just didn't dick around wiht brodeur and tried resigning mid season. Still a good deal considering that retards like Crawford and Smith get about the same, and he's miles better than both
He is also 28, so better to make your money through age 35 than tempt the market at 32 or so. The whole league is locking upi their guys younger and younger.
Yeah idk in his shoes, I'd do the same. Uprooting every few years must suck. He's making good scratch, has stability with the length and NTC, and the team gets a deal that pays him roughly the same as average goalies despite being much better. Seriously, if Boucher pans out and the Devils get some forwards who can convert their possession advantage into more goals, they could very easily be a scary good team again. DeBoer's a good coach, and now he won't be handicapped by being pressured into playing the bloated corpse of Marty 40 games a year.
On July 10 2014 22:41 QuanticHawk wrote: Yeah idk in his shoes, I'd do the same. Uprooting every few years must suck. He's making good scratch, has stability with the length and NTC, and the team gets a deal that pays him roughly the same as average goalies despite being much better. Seriously, if Boucher pans out and the Devils get some forwards who can convert their possession advantage into more goals, they could very easily be a scary good team again. DeBoer's a good coach, and now he won't be handicapped by being pressured into playing the bloated corpse of Marty 40 games a year.
Yeah, it seems like a nice situation for Schneider - he can just chill out and enjoy his peak years in a good system. Plus, the deterioration of goalies not-named-Hasek as they come into their mid-30s is pretty well documented so it keeps him from being a boat anchor later on should he go full-Brodeur.
On July 10 2014 02:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Looks like Kane and Toews have been locked up for 8 years by Chicago 6.3 million per year , each. Deals do not kick in until next year so Chicago is only 2 million over the cap this year.
So Chicago has 12 months to shave at least 5 million off their cap for 2015-16.
$6.3 million would be ridiculous. They're going to get $3.2 million less than Ovechkin when the cap is on the rise? One could argue that Kane is the best playoff performer in the game right now.
notice my post starts with "looks like"... seemed fishy to me as well. the link contains both Tim & Sid's erroneous $6.3 million/year on video and then the actual first published report which was correct at $10.5 million.
now i guess you can rag on Tim & Side for getting it incorrect, but they reported the signing in the middle of their live show about 20 minutes before any published reports came out.
arthroscopic surgery is not very invasive, therefore, recovery from arthroscopic surgery is usually 2 weeks... so Crosby can take his time in making a decision.
Fresh off paying Quincey more money than he earned last year because he is in a deep panic over no other FA d-man wanting to sign in Detroit, Ken Holland triples down on idiocy and signs Dan Cleary for another year, 1.5 million guranteed and another million in bonuses.
On July 11 2014 06:29 Sub40APM wrote: Fresh off paying Quincey more money than he earned last year because he is in a deep panic over no other FA d-man wanting to sign in Detroit, Ken Holland triples down on idiocy and signs Dan Cleary for another year, 1.5 million guranteed and another million in bonuses.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sGgudzq.png)
