HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All-Purpose Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread Part III

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-07-2012, 03:26 AM
  #1
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,640
vCash: 1379
All-Purpose Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread Part III

Previous Thread: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1086847

And continue!

TheJuxtaposer is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 03:27 AM
  #2
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,640
vCash: 1379
Last post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSmith View Post
Most of the Wild fans are frustrated with Seto and his production. It's a pipe dream, but I'd love to trade for him to be back on the team this year.

CAPGEEK.COM CAP CALCULATOR

FORWARDS
Devin Setoguchi ($3.000m) / Joe Thornton ($7.000m) / Joe Pavelski ($4.000m)
Patrick Marleau ($6.900m) / Logan Couture ($2.875m) / Ryane Clowe ($3.625m)
Jamie McGinn ($0.680m) / Michal Handzus ($2.500m) / Martin Havlat ($5.000m)
Brad Winchester ($0.725m) / Andrew Desjardins ($0.540m) / Torrey Mitchell ($1.366m)

DEFENSEMEN
Dan Boyle ($6.666m) / Brent Burns ($5.760m)
Marc-Edouard Vlasic ($3.100m) / Douglas Murray ($2.500m)
Colin White ($1.000m) / Justin Braun ($0.875m)
Jim Vandermeer ($1.000m) / Jason Demers ($1.250m)

GOALTENDERS
Antti Niemi ($3.800m) / Thomas Greiss ($0.587m)

CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled without the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $64,300,000; CAP PAYROLL: $64,750,833; BONUSES: $0
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): -$450,833


That is a team ready for the playoffs!

TheJuxtaposer is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 03:39 AM
  #3
Inub0i
For the Alliance!
 
Inub0i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UC Irvine, Irvine
Country: United States
Posts: 8,643
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Inub0i Send a message via MSN to Inub0i Send a message via Skype™ to Inub0i
James Sheppard +MIN 2nd for Seto

Inub0i is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 04:10 AM
  #4
Chaotic8
Boarding Major
 
Chaotic8's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Anthony Stewart.......

Chaotic8 is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 04:13 AM
  #5
Negatively Positive
Save us Tomas!
 
Negatively Positive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inub0i View Post
James Sheppard +MIN 2nd for Seto
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't take Sheppard back even if Couture was coming with him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaotic8 View Post
Anthony Stewart.......
.....will not fall to us.

Negatively Positive is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 04:16 AM
  #6
Chaotic8
Boarding Major
 
Chaotic8's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Anthony Stewart
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark Fin Soup View Post
.....will not fall to us.
Yea, it's wishful thinking. I'm surprised he survived the day without being claimed.

Chaotic8 is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 04:19 AM
  #7
StreetSharks
#19 Joe Trollton
 
StreetSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Frisco
Posts: 5,481
vCash: 500
I don't want Moen.

StreetSharks is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 04:23 AM
  #8
Inub0i
For the Alliance!
 
Inub0i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UC Irvine, Irvine
Country: United States
Posts: 8,643
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Inub0i Send a message via MSN to Inub0i Send a message via Skype™ to Inub0i
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetSharks View Post
I don't want Moen.
I don't know anyone on this board that does. Well... I don't know a whole lot of people.
Well... No Moen Please.

Inub0i is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 04:24 AM
  #9
sharkbite3
blood in the water
 
sharkbite3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seaside, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,615
vCash: 500
What are people's thoughts on P.A. Parenteau? He's rumored to be on the block in NY.

sharkbite3 is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 04:27 AM
  #10
Chaotic8
Boarding Major
 
Chaotic8's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkbite3 View Post
What are people's thoughts on P.A. Parenteau? He's rumored to be on the block in NY.
He'd take one hell of a return considering he's second in pts only to Tavares. Not really sure if he would fit well with out system though; where would we place him? 3rd line is the only logical fit, but I doubt that would motivate the kid to play his part.

Chaotic8 is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 05:34 AM
  #11
Vaasa
Registered User
 
Vaasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
So you'd prefer people debating points based on their subjective and error-riddled memories rather than facts?
I've been trying to stay out of these discussions, but I wanted to address this point. The problem is that you do not understand how statistics work. When talking about stats there is cause, correlation, and noise. For example, when you say things like:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
The fourth line has been outshot 29-13 at even strength since Murray's last game. Some of that is Desjardins not being on it but a lot of that is also the absence of A. Murray.
You are confusing a fact, that the fourth line was outshot 29-13 without Murray; to a cause that that reason that the fourth line was outshot was because Murray was not on the ice. The fact is that you simply have no basis for that causal statement.

In order to have any statistical validity in saying that the absence of Murray was directly the cause of the fourth line being outshot the situation in ALL of the games this season, both with and without Murray, would have to be the same. That means the exact same teams playing, with the exact same rosters, with all the players in the exact same condition of health, at exactly the same time, on exactly the same ice surface, with exactly the same penalties called at the same time to same players, etc. To prove CAUSE, you must have the some conditions in a testable manner.

But the problem is that you can't even really infer a solid correlation relationship with those stats. Are those shot counts adjusted depending on opposition, line mates, time on ice, health of the players, and other factors that might skew the numbers one way or another? No, they aren't. And even if could infer a correlation relationship, you might be drawing the wrong one. You seem to saying that Murray is so defensively sound that his presence on the ice reduces the oppositions ability to get shots on net. I could just as easily say that the correlation instead is that Murray is so bad defensively that the defensive pairs are more careful when he is on the ice, effectively reducing the shots against. And that when he is off the ice, they trust the remaining forwards defensive abilities more allowing more shots on goal knowing they have additional defensive support to help clear the rebounds.

So basically, you are quoting all these stats that are basically just noise. An individual stat like shooting %, shots against, or any other stat may have some correlational relationship to player impact when looked at over a broad sample size to a generic player. So I might be able to say that in general, over hundreds of NHL players measured over thousands of NHL games, that when a player is on the ice and the opposition gets more shots than the players team gets shots for, that that represents a correlation to the players defensive skills. The broad sample size helps moderate out factors like player improvement or declines in skills; injuries; differences in teams skills, etc. But the statistics simply do not support drawing those same conclusions on a causal basis when looked for an individual player over a particular (especially a small) period of time.

At best, the statistics can help identify trends that MAY be applicable to certain players at certain times, and provide coaches, scouts, fans, and others things to look for to see if they may be true at a particular time. But in the end, individual observation (as subjective as it is) and memory (as faulty as that is) are more likely to support relevant analysis of an individual players impact that trying to apply such specific stats as you are.

Vaasa is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 08:24 AM
  #12
oyster
Registered User
 
oyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
... broad sample size helps moderate out factors like player improvement or declines in skills; injuries; differences in teams skills, etc. But the statistics simply do not support drawing those same conclusions on a causal basis when looked for an individual player over a particular (especially a small) period of time.
THIS! It drives me crazy when people cherry-pick statistics to try and prove a point. It seems especially common in sports. When Kent Huskins gets 7 points in a very specific 6 game streak, it doesn't mean he's a PPG defenseman (although he could be if he wanted to, but scoring is too easy and real men PK). Or arguing that X goalie is an elite top-5 goaltender because they have/had the best stats for a month.

I think you maybe went a wee bit overboard with what you'd accept for statistical validity, at least for something as dynamic and volitile as professional hockey, but your point is right on. You can't draw good conclusions from limited data.

oyster is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 09:05 AM
  #13
redfish
awesome hockey dude
 
redfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
I've been trying to stay out of these discussions, but I wanted to address this point. The problem is that you do not understand how statistics work. When talking about stats there is cause, correlation, and noise. For example, when you say things like:



You are confusing a fact, that the fourth line was outshot 29-13 without Murray; to a cause that that reason that the fourth line was outshot was because Murray was not on the ice. The fact is that you simply have no basis for that causal statement.

In order to have any statistical validity in saying that the absence of Murray was directly the cause of the fourth line being outshot the situation in ALL of the games this season, both with and without Murray, would have to be the same. That means the exact same teams playing, with the exact same rosters, with all the players in the exact same condition of health, at exactly the same time, on exactly the same ice surface, with exactly the same penalties called at the same time to same players, etc. To prove CAUSE, you must have the some conditions in a testable manner.

But the problem is that you can't even really infer a solid correlation relationship with those stats. Are those shot counts adjusted depending on opposition, line mates, time on ice, health of the players, and other factors that might skew the numbers one way or another? No, they aren't. And even if could infer a correlation relationship, you might be drawing the wrong one. You seem to saying that Murray is so defensively sound that his presence on the ice reduces the oppositions ability to get shots on net. I could just as easily say that the correlation instead is that Murray is so bad defensively that the defensive pairs are more careful when he is on the ice, effectively reducing the shots against. And that when he is off the ice, they trust the remaining forwards defensive abilities more allowing more shots on goal knowing they have additional defensive support to help clear the rebounds.

So basically, you are quoting all these stats that are basically just noise. An individual stat like shooting %, shots against, or any other stat may have some correlational relationship to player impact when looked at over a broad sample size to a generic player. So I might be able to say that in general, over hundreds of NHL players measured over thousands of NHL games, that when a player is on the ice and the opposition gets more shots than the players team gets shots for, that that represents a correlation to the players defensive skills. The broad sample size helps moderate out factors like player improvement or declines in skills; injuries; differences in teams skills, etc. But the statistics simply do not support drawing those same conclusions on a causal basis when looked for an individual player over a particular (especially a small) period of time.

At best, the statistics can help identify trends that MAY be applicable to certain players at certain times, and provide coaches, scouts, fans, and others things to look for to see if they may be true at a particular time. But in the end, individual observation (as subjective as it is) and memory (as faulty as that is) are more likely to support relevant analysis of an individual players impact that trying to apply such specific stats as you are.
so only facts, not opinions are allowed??

redfish is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 09:45 AM
  #14
rangerssharks414
Registered User
 
rangerssharks414's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 11,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetSharks View Post
I don't want Moen.
Me neither.

rangerssharks414 is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 10:08 AM
  #15
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
You are confusing a fact, that the fourth line was outshot 29-13 without Murray; to a cause that that reason that the fourth line was outshot was because Murray was not on the ice. The fact is that you simply have no basis for that causal statement.
I'm well aware that six games constitutes a tiny sample size. My statement that the fourth line has been less effective with Murray not on it is supported by the degree to which they have been dominated with him out of the lineup. That doesn't necessarily mean his absence is the only reason they've sucked; just pointing out that they have, indeed, been terrible without him while admitting that there are many other confounding factors including, but not limited to, Andrew Desjardins being promoted to the top line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
In order to have any statistical validity in saying that the absence of Murray was directly the cause of the fourth line being outshot the situation in ALL of the games this season, both with and without Murray, would have to be the same. That means the exact same teams playing, with the exact same rosters, with all the players in the exact same condition of health, at exactly the same time, on exactly the same ice surface, with exactly the same penalties called at the same time to same players, etc. To prove CAUSE, you must have the some conditions in a testable manner.
This is a professional sport. You're not going to be able to conduct a controlled experiment to determine player value. That absolutely does NOT mean that relying on flawed memory and flawed interpretation of that memory is superior to using the numbers that are available. This statement is also rather hypocritical since I presume you have zero problem using point totals or TOI or plus/minus to evaluate a player. Why aren't you calculating p-values or error bars or adjusting for teammates and competition for those? Or perhaps you operate under the delusion that you not only watch every minute of every NHL game but retain the entirety of those games in your memory bank, able to sift through the recesses of your brain on demand to extract information about the events that occurred during any player's shift?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
But the problem is that you can't even really infer a solid correlation relationship with those stats. Are those shot counts adjusted depending on opposition, line mates, time on ice, health of the players, and other factors that might skew the numbers one way or another? No, they aren't. And even if could infer a correlation relationship, you might be drawing the wrong one. You seem to saying that Murray is so defensively sound that his presence on the ice reduces the oppositions ability to get shots on net. I could just as easily say that the correlation instead is that Murray is so bad defensively that the defensive pairs are more careful when he is on the ice, effectively reducing the shots against. And that when he is off the ice, they trust the remaining forwards defensive abilities more allowing more shots on goal knowing they have additional defensive support to help clear the rebounds.
I think you're seriously misunderstanding the reason I brought up the on-ice shot totals for the fourth line with Murray out of the lineup. It's a pretty basic tenet of hockey that if you're getting outshot by the opposition you're spending more time in your own zone. The role of the fourth line, at least in my view, is to maintain possession as long as possible, thereby increasing the likelihood that the other three lines can begin their shifts in the good end of the ice. When Murray has been on the ice this season, the Sharks have outshot the opposition 192-153, meaning they've spent around 56% of their shifts in the offensive zone which is a very high number relative to most other fourth lines in the NHL. If you want to believe they're territorially dominating the opposition when Murray is on the ice because the Sharks' defense are playing more conservatively...that's your prerogative to draw that conclusion. Just know that it's a very, very misinformed one. And that last sentence indicates to me that you have an extremely fuzzy concept of strategy at the NHL level. No coach, especially not McLellan, is instructing their fourth line to spend their entire shift in the defensive zone allowing as many shots as possible because they'll be able to clear the rebounds. In a completely asinine post, that line takes the cake. Congratulations.


Last edited by Les Wynan*: 02-07-2012 at 10:16 AM.
Les Wynan* is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 10:21 AM
  #16
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TehJuxtaposer
Alright then. If shot quality is a moot point, then if the Sharks have the highest shot average in the league, why aren't they first in scoring?
Because, as I've said a thousand times now, shooting percentage in small sample sizes is entirely luck. If something is a skill it should be repeatable. Shooting percentage at the team level has shown not to be. Over a multiple-year sample all teams regress to league average SH% of 8.1%. Even over the course of a single season, all teams regress heavily towards that number as well as a PDO (SH% + SV%) of 1000 overall.

And, of course, shot differential is the true indicator of team talent and the Sharks are 6th in the league in Fenwick Close and 5th in the league in even strength goal differential so the numbers sometimes match up even halfway through a season.


Last edited by Les Wynan*: 02-07-2012 at 10:48 AM.
Les Wynan* is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 11:09 AM
  #17
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,395
vCash: 500
I agree RE: the place of stats in sports.

I was really upset we traded Seto, however the trade was a good one. our blue line is worth more than him and can make or break you in the play offs.

so whats the reality of him coming back? probably none, we dont have the pieces to send the other way for it to work for both teams, the only leverage we have is league standings.

Im surprised Pollak put out an article that was just pure speculation, leave that to the forum posters...Busch league.

His assessment that we are looking for a proven goal scorer could hold some weight

carolina-ruutu
edmonton-gagner
anaheim-ryan, perry
tampa bay-stamkos, st. louis
islanders-tavares
columbus-nash, umberger

These teams are either out or on the edge. so realistically are probably thinking about whether or not they are a selling team. phoenix is too close, no way they deal doan.

I just dont see it...im probably not going in depth enough regarding these teams future needs and what we have that we could give them, but the way pollak talks we are looking for goal scoring depth in the top 6, like we wouldnt have to give something of our top 6 for any of those guys minus umberger and possibly ruutu.

do0glas is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 11:23 AM
  #18
Nighthock
**** the Kings...
 
Nighthock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 15,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaotic8 View Post
Anthony Stewart.......
... is useless. Don't be wishful based on last year's "okay" performance. He's basically an older version of Torrey Mitchell who can't play any sort of defensive game ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetSharks
I don't want Moen.
If the price is right, he's actually not a bad option. If he doesn't pan out again in the playoffs, we let him walk again.

Nighthock is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 12:12 PM
  #19
Splitbtw
Rebuild? Refresh?
 
Splitbtw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Because, as I've said a thousand times now, shooting percentage in small sample sizes is entirely luck. If something is a skill it should be repeatable. Shooting percentage at the team level has shown not to be. Over a multiple-year sample all teams regress to league average SH% of 8.1%. Even over the course of a single season, all teams regress heavily towards that number as well as a PDO (SH% + SV%) of 1000 overall.

And, of course, shot differential is the true indicator of team talent and the Sharks are 6th in the league in Fenwick Close and 5th in the league in even strength goal differential so the numbers sometimes match up even halfway through a season.
I'm also going to suggest you just start your own statistics thread and posters can argue over players and stats with you there. It really does seem like you use what's convenient to support your argument and call everything else luck.

I would say the Sharks of previous seasons are definitely reasons why shot differential is not an indicator of success. Even ignorning that, whenso many variables involved in a shot and quality is not one that can be quanified, then your constant use of shot differential as an argument gets tired sooner rather than later.

When you find stats to support your argument: "see look at all these advanced stats."

When you can't: "it's just bad/good luck."

Splitbtw is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 12:19 PM
  #20
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 8,008
vCash: 500
Ugh! FFS, stop with the endless discussion about stats. Start another thread, don't clutter this one.

Gilligans Island is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 12:53 PM
  #21
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
If everyone would just use the ignore feature and stop quoting him, the clutter would go away. Please. Stop quoting him.

Stickmata is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 01:10 PM
  #22
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,330
vCash: 500
Who cares? Ignore the thread or just skim past the posts.

magic school bus is online now  
Old
02-07-2012, 01:12 PM
  #23
dkollidas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,058
vCash: 500
Roy and Gaustad for Pavelski? Could add Leopold in there as well.

Or Pominville for Pavelski straight up?

I would think of these deals as being after the season. Maybe if you guys don't won't the Cup and management decides a shakeup is necessary. I just figure of all the forwards, Thorton and Marleau heave NTC's and large cap hits, and are over 30. Couture I would assume is untouchable. No one will give any good value for Havlat, so that leaves Pavelski as the only major forward that could really be moved. Having Thorton, Marleau and Couture as guys who can play center, along with Pavelski, makes center a position of abundance. So I could see Pominville being a player of interest.

I'm not trying to say that these things are necessarily true, but that's how I see them as an outsider, and was just curious as to Pavelski's availability, particularly if you guys don't win the cup this season.

dkollidas is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 01:12 PM
  #24
Karl with a C
RIP Локомотив
 
Karl with a C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 15,765
vCash: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
If everyone would just use the ignore feature and stop quoting him, the clutter would go away. Please. Stop quoting him.
There's no reason to ignore him, he's not doing anything wrong. If you don't want to read about stats then skip over his posts.

Karl with a C is offline  
Old
02-07-2012, 01:19 PM
  #25
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splitbtw View Post
I'm also going to suggest you just start your own statistics thread and posters can argue over players and stats with you there. It really does seem like you use what's convenient to support your argument and call everything else luck.

I would say the Sharks of previous seasons are definitely reasons why shot differential is not an indicator of success. Even ignorning that, whenso many variables involved in a shot and quality is not one that can be quanified, then your constant use of shot differential as an argument gets tired sooner rather than later.

When you find stats to support your argument: "see look at all these advanced stats."

When you can't: "it's just bad/good luck."
Except that I provide evidence of the extent to which certain aspects of the game are influenced by luck. If you disagree, you should probably have some evidence to back up your assertions.

"Sharks of previous seasons are definitely reasons why shot differential is not an indicator of success"...sorry, what? The Sharks have won more games since the beginning of the 08-09 season than any other team in the NHL. If you can't even get facts as basic as your favorite team's record straight, there's no point discussing this further.

Also I hardly see how complaining about my responses to other people's posts is productive. You're free to use the ignore function or skip over my posts. I'm usually not the person starting these things, but I'm definitely going to respond to other people's arguments/attacks.

Les Wynan* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.