speak for yourself man.. i wouldnt move Gudas for a 2nd.

he has an average passing ability, but the zone exit ability is why Flyers fans don't like him. I like him and wouldn't move him because Myers isn't going to crack the team and I'm not trying to watch Brennan or Willcox play if we hit the injury bug.

yeah thats the point lol. PDO is luck and his was way below league average. That's why they always say never sell low on someone because of their PDO. Gudas is twice the player Polak is. It doesn't take advanced stats or "counting" stats to see it. We can use a method that both sides use in the eye test. Gudas is better easily. He comes with more baggage because of the suspensions, but he's a good payer that as of right now means too much to the team to move for a 2nd round pick. If it was for a player on TOR sure, but the draft picks have little value at this point for Philly, imo. Part of the reason he had a down year is because he's usually paired with a decent puck mover. He's had the best success being with Sanheim, Streit, Del Zotto, and Medvedev. For some reason Hak like to put Manning with him for extended periods of time and it never works out great.

5v5:
w/ Manning: CF% 51.52, CF%rel +1.87, xGF% 50.22 , xGF%rel -0.33
w/ Sanheim: CF% 57.11, CF%rel +7.48 , xGF% 56.87, xGF%rel +7.81

... so depending on how TOR utilizes him he'd be very effective. Pair him with a true puck mover and he could play on any pair and provide value. He didn't all of a sudden just turn bad. He makes his money by being one of the better dmen at preventing controlled entries into the zone. Last year he just stopped stepping up to people at the blue line after the suspensions which caused him to look worse than he was. it also doesn't help when he is paired with another guy like Manning.

ok, so lots of good points and some I will never, and I'm not alone, agree with.

First, these metrics some love to reference are only good in addition to traditional evaluation. Not as the core decision making factor. Since phillyja's reply only stating these metrics then its not wrong to assume this. Based on previous years of watching both players and based on traditional stats, Polak, to the leafs, has just as much value as gudas to philly. Yes Gudas is a better player, i can admit that. But at 3.3mil would he add that much more value to torontos line up. no chance!

As for advanced metrics, sure they can be valuable, but they can't be relied on. All the stats you state, with sanhiem, with carrick etc. These are variables. Theses stats are based on way to many variables to be completely relied upon and will change team to team. No stat can say some one like gudas will succeed on the leafs. Who's in net? whos gudas passing to? who's coaching him on what to do. So, no I don't believe these metrics are so valuable they should be the base of an argument, respect can only be lost if you ignore traditional evaluations. When you compare Gudas to DeHaan you also devalue advance metrics, its just ridiculous. Any GM valuing them the same would not have a job long.

Facts are facts, Polak is not as good as Gudas but he performed better than Gudas last year for the leafs than Gudas did for Philly, granted Polaks on a better team. Also, the leafs don't need Gudas, or Polak. Their propects and style of play prove this. Thats what i was implying with my first comment, if we need a player like gudas, we may as well stick with polak and keep the cap room.

You seem to have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how these underlying metrics function. Your saying that "traditional evaluation" is better than this model that goes against conventional wisdom, but you don't really provide any substance to support it. You affirm "facts are facts," but when I provided metrics that supported the claim that Gudas did better than Polak last year, you said the exact opposite.

I would like for you to elaborate on your stance on the comparable and how there is a correlation with the devaluation of advanced metrics, seeing as how it is made up of mostly standard stats with some advanced ones (iHDCF/60, etc.). You don't really seem to demonstrate an understanding of what is actually makes up the comparison.

Again, I'd like for you to elaborate on your stance with "traditional evaluation" is an absolute over "advanced evaluation". And you very frankly said that Gudas was just a more expensive Polak - no implication of need or incentives with that statement.

How do you think they chose player before "advanced" metrics? Traditional methods. Individual attributes, attitude, decision making ability, chemistry. A lot of immeasurable's. As soon as you compare DeHaan to Gudas your points become garbage.

So when you provide your advance metrics to "prove" that gudas is better and I reply with different stats proving they are no different. The stats that i present(which are Goals, assists, +/-) are not relevant? didn't you say advanced metrics are made up of standard stats but at the same time reject standard stats?

How about more watching the games and less reading about them and maybe you will understand. one day.

I mean, I can make the case that Ryan Merkely is a top-five talent from this draft with his zone entries and exists relative to other prospects. There is analytical tracking at high school and USHL-CHL levels to improve the team and find which players are most effective in their systems.

I'd like for you to explain to me what goes into the comparable, as you have no real statement on what goes into the function that produces that comparison. Simply because you don't understand or don't value the comparisons's formula breakdown, doesn't mean it's not an indicator of similarity.

They have the same P/60 rate at 5v5 this past season and +/- isn't an indicator of individual talent. It's a useless stat for comparing players. If you play on a bad team, you are going to have a bad +/- and vise versa for those on good teams. That's not what I said. I said that the comparison uses standard stats as well as advanced stats to spit out the comp. I reject stats that are not indicators of talent levels.

If you'd like to use the eye test, that's fine, that's your prerogative. I simply don't believe that our eyes are the most reliable source.

Yeah. I can imagine thats the same argument Dubas gave to Babs. "ok, Mike, Brenden, we no longer need to watch anyone play and use our experience and evaluation methods developed by a century of scouting and playing the game. Take this sheet of paper and pick your team and who plays with who from that."

lol.