Dumba is arguably more valuable than Trouba. Coyle is way better than Tanev of Chariot making this a very uneven trade.

I don't like this deal at all! I wouldn't trade Dumba for Trouba straight up...much less take on Chariot...who was horrible against the Wild in the playoffs. I don't know enough about Tavev to evaluate him, but I'm probably not giving up Coyle for him and Chariot.

Dumba is not arguably more valuable that Trouba. They're very comparable pp60 wise and 5v5 (dumbas points inflated by PP time while Troubas deflated by lack there of). Trouba is just better defensively. [url]https://public.tableau.com/profile/bill.comeau#!/vizhome/SkaterComparisonToolv2/Dashboard1[/url]

Coyle is however much better than Tanev and Chiarot holds negative value so if you're the Jets you do this in a heartbeat to be done with the Trouba situation and get back a similar RHD.

And if you are Minnesota?

I'd have to think long and hard about it to be honest. Their situation is an interesting one because the prospect pipeline isn't exactly bursting at the seems with top level talent. Kaprizov may never even suit up for them and their core is aging and despite Suter still being a great D man, Parise has lost a step and both are signed for another what 7 years at 7.5M? Their time should be now but I don't think they have the horses to compete with the powerhouses of the west so honestly I probably don't do it from a MIN point of view and just start a rebuild.

I guess I'm an anomaly on here because I think about the motivates of both teams in a trade scenario and see if a proposed trade makes sense based off need for both teams. In this case, there is no motivation for Minesota to make that trade.

I'll keep dumba all day over trouba. player and contract.

I have no dog in the fight, but this is a curious statement. If they're equivalent players at 5v5 and Dumba is clearly superior on the PP, doesn't that have value?



Another interesting statement. in 2017-18, their CA/60, FA/60 and SA/60 were nearly identical. Dumba had a much better GA/60 (2.20 v 2.56) despite slightly worse O-zone starts (46.02 v 48.56). Looks like Dumba can play the defense too.

If fancy stats could account for Trouba’s injury problems (he has averaged only 65 games a season in his 5 year NHL career), Dumba would prove to be much more valuable!

I don't know whos models you're using for advanced stats but using Bill Comeau, I get (Trouba/Dumba) for CF/60: 53.62 v 46.67 for CA/60: 50.47 v 51.07 xGF% 54.48 v 51.45 Rel Tmate xGF% 1.810 v -3.790 xGF/60: 2.423 v 2.047 CF % of 52 v 48
When using hockey reference- CF% 50.4 v 46.9, CF% rel .3 v -.3 FF% 51.7 v 47.3 FF% rel 1.1 v -1.2

Nothing I see says Dumba is better defensively and is actually not "nearly identical". The Ozone and Dzone starts are what you stated in the models I've seen but I'm legitimately asking what you use as reference for analytics?

I don't know whos models you're using for advanced stats but using Bill Comeau, I get (Trouba/Dumba) for CF/60: 53.62 v 46.67 for CA/60: 50.47 v 51.07 xGF% 54.48 v 51.45 Rel Tmate xGF% 1.810 v -3.790 xGF/60: 2.423 v 2.047 CF % of 52 v 48
When using hockey reference- CF% 50.4 v 46.9, CF% rel .3 v -.3 FF% 51.7 v 47.3 FF% rel 1.1 v -1.2

Nothing I see says Dumba is better defensively and is actually not "nearly identical". The Ozone and Dzone starts are what you stated in the models I've seen but I'm legitimately asking what you use as reference for analytics?

Naturalstattrick.com

And you're quoting mostly "differential" or "offensive" stats, not "defensive" stats with the exception of the highlighted portion above (which illustrates my point, thank you). Stats like xGF% doesn't tell you how good someone is defensively, just whether their offense outweighs their defense. You need to look at the purely defensive side of the equation, like the stats I mentioned above.

Just what the Wild need, Another $7 to $8 million D man in Jacob Trouba. First off Trouba wont be dealt in the division. And secondly he wants to play in the east.

Wasn't quoting defensive only I wanted comparisons for what you were getting in advanced stats as a whole. After comparing from naturalstatrick and hockey references it's evident from just CF CA CF% that something doesn't add up in the tabulations.
Statrick had dumba in 17/18 as 1344 CF and 1502 CA for CF% 47.22 where hockey reference had CF 1413 CA 1602 CF% 46.9%.
Statrick and Trouba in 17/18 as 955 CF and 914 CA for CF% 51.10 where hockey reference had 997 CF 980 CA CF% 50.4

There aren't overly huge differences but it does add up. I'm always looking to expand my analytics knowledge and understanding as adding any information when doing an evaluation is useful but it's just interesting that 3 different sites have 3 different evaluations and though all close in assessment, there seems to be a 2% margin of error between them

You have one site on 5v5 and the other on Even Strength - they are not the same thing. NST has Dumba at 1414 CF and 1602 CA Even Strength, so the margin of error is much smaller than 2%.

Even strength includes 4v4 ice-time as well as 5v5. Likewise, Power Play numbers will not be the same as 5v4, as they include 5v3, 6v5 and 6v4.

Boom goes the dynamite...never noticed that before thanks!