[

This either means that Jim Nill is as stupid as any or you don't have clue what you're saying.

Do you even analytics, bro?

Not as well as you, sis.

Here's from Jim Nill: "Stars GM Jim Nill praised Lindell during the announcement saying, “Esa is a consummate professional who has proven himself dependable in every situation and is just an absolute workhorse. When you combine his strength, conditioning, hockey IQ and skill, he has become an integral part of this team.”"

Do you think Nill is just desperate or could it be that his team of analysists have the same numbers as you have and said "safe bet, go for it"?

I posted the numbers on page one if you are interested.
I think what happened was the department did exactly the same thing Lou did with Zaitzev. Trending up, career year, looks good to get a long term deal signed.
The underlying numbers are horrific, so her point on him looking good with Klingberg makes some sense (I don't watch the stars so I have to defer to the numbers and others observations).

edit: Ill just link here

Maybe the underlying metrics are that way because lindell plays defense first? He's not out there chasing stats he's out there making sure if the opponent has the puck they take a bad angle shot or get grinded off of it. I mean the dude scored 10 goals as a defensive defender. He's a two way defense in points only but his game is all about defense sure if his coach says go out there and shoot the puck he will but watch his playoffs. Did nothing but kill penalties by himself. For 2 minutes straight. Played the last 2 minutes of every game as well

There is no such thing as "chasing stats"
This whole post basically says: I don't understand advanced stats, and so they cannot be right or mean anything

My real issue with this contract isn't the amount or the length. It's the needless NMC attached to it.
Teams handing those out like candy, that's how teams end up with issues. There is nothing about this player that makes me think, he needs a nmc. He's not a star player, he's not a corner stone of a team. He's a piece, and pieces can get moved.

I like Lindell a lot and I know salaries league-wide are going up but, after looking past the base stats of Lindell the length and unmoveability of this contract scares me.

As a lot of people have said, this contract reminds me a lot of Nikita Zaitsev and... that hasn't worked out so far.

I voted no mostly because of the NMC and the length.

@Random2152 summed it up for me. I rest my case; Lindell is very, very bad when away from Klinger.

I didn't know pro divers made this much

Said Jim Montgomery: ""I'm not sure you can evaluate him properly with analytics,"... "For the impact he has on us winning and losing, a lot of it is subtle stuff that's hard to measure. His ability to manage games, to break up plays, to end plays, that's where you notice his value. He sees the ice, he knows time and score, he knows where his teammates are on their shift, and he allows us to get out of our own zone at crucial times in games. That's his biggest strength.""

Said Jim Nill: ""And then, on the ice, he can play any game you want. He's got enough skill to be a good offensive player -- and we're really just starting to see him do that -- and then, defensively, not a lot of players match up to him. He's as good a penalty killer as anyone in the league"..."He's strong, he's durable, he's good at shutting things down. We're very excited to have him.""

Said Icegirl: "Lindell is very, very bad when away from Klinger."

I guess we get back to this in a few years and see which one was right, the people who get paid big money for doing these deals or the amateur hockey stats analyst. I really do mean it, you might be right and they'll soon look stupid for overpaying.

I just want to address the little things bit here:
Analytics are specifically designed to HIGHLIGHT the little things that you don't notice. That is what they are developed for. The ones I posted here are FAR from the only important ones, but they illustrate a point in an easy to use and digest manner. They are meant to show things like breaking up plays and zone exits (corsi is one form of the latter).

The Dallas Stars are one of the teams that are known to not use analytics at all, along with Ken Holland and others.

What the chart say (this year) is that Lindell took low percentage shots and scored on more than would normally be expected (the left 2 most columns). It also says that his team generally shoots the puck less when he is on the ice, meaning they have the puck less (stuck in the D zone, middle column). The defensive metrics say that the other team shoots the puck from slightly less dangerous positions than when he is off the ice (this is shot %/ high danger scoring chances, 4th column) and that the other team shoots the puck more/ has the puck more when Lindell is on the ice vs when he is off.

Going back to what Nill said, the underlying metrics say his eye test is wrong in this instance. It is the reason why the traditional DFD is going out of style, because they can be good in corners and keeping guys to the outside, the puck is always in their end of the ice vs a TWD or OFD getting the puck out of his own end.

Not too hard to understand that they shoot less with Lindell om the ice since he starts 65% of his shifts in dzone. But even though he had the highest percentage of dzone starts he still had the best +/- of all d-men in Dallas

What does the underlying metrics have to say about that?

That plus minus is a useless stat for one. It is literally the first thing you learn. Ron hainsey led the leafs in +/- this year for example.
There are other dmen who get buried in their own zone and put up positive Corsi numbers and the like. Pesce, Theodore, Rielly, the list goes on and on.

Dzone starting % is also not as important statistically as one might think it is in determining how a player is affected stats wise. It does play a part, that is not in question, but we overcompensate for it in our heads relative to what it is actually worth.

You know, I'm trying to be helpful here, no need to act like a child with the last bit there.

I know +/- isn't always great stat to look at. But combined with dzone starts I think it is kind of relevant. Nowadays everyone is too hooked on corsi. Corsi doesn't tell you much at all if you don't start to combine it with other stats aswell and it doesn't tell you about how you play. Maybe you take alot of ****ty shots instead of passing the open guy with a better scoring chance.

Defensive defensemen are always going to look bad in advanced stats, which is why those stats will never be a big deal.

Looking at stats the way you look at them is simply off.
Numbers don't tell whole stories unless they are broken down into such small samples they are meaningless.
Which is why there are people who don't rely all that heavily on analytics.
They don't tell you if the player is mismatched. They don't tell you about the chemistry with the other players on the ice, or if the player is simply being put in a bad position or is being asked to do something out of his actual skill set. It's just a bunch or raw data that with no context is simply meaningless.
Just about every stat (there are one or two exceptions) you can list can be boiled down to be just as worthless as any other. Be it corsi or +/- or whatever. Which is why saying some are "good" while others are "bad" is fairly meaningless statement.

On a side note if you want to know what an exception is, I would say the faceoff stat. You either win it or lose it and it has very little to do with anything else on the ice other than a 1 to 1 match up. And it's a stat that definitely effects the game and is one of the most important and useful stats in hockey. Although personally I think it should be changed to "who gains possession" as you can "win" the faceoff and not get possession of the puck. But that's a different conversation.

The +/- stat like any other stat does tell you something on the ice just like the corsi does. If you have a high +/- goals are going in for your team and not the other team. Yes there maybe reasons for it other than the player, but the same can be said about the corsi stat too. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the team is winning with them on the ice. The corsi stat is also famously known for not meaning anything because having possession does not mean winning. There are plenty of teams and games where one hold possession of the puck and they don't score. A simply example, the penguins had a corsi advantage over the islanders in 4 playoff games this year.....they got swept. Furthermore, a players corsi can be boosted by other players holding the puck and winning puck battles not the player in question. They simply get credit for it. There are indeed "corsi vultures" just as much as there are "+/- vultures." So it's really a meaningless stat in that regard. It doesn't say that this player is the reason the team has possession of the puck, but only that the team had possession of the puck and they happened to be on ice when it happened.

Does that mean stats are useless, no but it does mean that looking at some stats and saying "those are the good ones" and ignoring others because they don't fit the narrative is a bad way to look at statistics. They don't show you what is happening on the ice. Players mesh together well. They might be losing the corsi consistently, they might be giving up more shots, higher fenwick whatever. But at the end of the game they are always coming out a goal ahead consistently which is why they are a +20 as opposed to a -10. If you want an example of that, the penguins beat CBJ in the playoffs on route to a cup several years ago and CBJ was dominating in about every statistical category but 1, the score board. CBJ was so frustrated little matt calvert broke his stick blind siding Kunhackle from the side. They let CBJ has possession, they let them take all the shots in the world, they even had more high danger shots. No stat will show you why they lost, but it just is that way. At the end of the game the only stat that counts is the score board.

Which is why the eye test is, and will always be the 1st thing used in looking at a player and the vast majority of the "advanced" stats or whatever mean very little unless given a lot of context. Which is why broad generalizations and clumps of stats to make any kind of reasonable decision about a player, team, system etc... is ill advised.

You are seriously stupid, he had the highest defensive rating in the NHL. He’s an excellent defensman with our without Klingberg, watch hockey before comment ridiculous stuff like that.

Genuinely curious, what defensive rating was he the highest in?



Oops, forgot about these posts lol


Here are the stats for Pesce and Theodore. (All the picks have Theodore as I was making a comparison and these are what I have saved.

Here is Giordano

Here is a certified OFD for comparison

And another one

And here are other underlying metrics


Tl;dr
You're wrong.






1) The point is to figure out averages, to roughly predict future play. The numbers can never be accurate down to the individual play as they'd be meaningless as you pointed out, but the numbers essentially count the little plays. If a player is making a lot of little plays that help you win, chances are they are going to continue to do so.

2) The problem with the +/- stat is that it doesn't differentiate between you actually helping to make that stat, or if they are just a passenger on the line watching their team mates do it all. Ron Hainsey is a perfect example of this as he lead the Leafs in +/- this year on a pair with Rielly (who had a Norris calibre offensive season).

3) Blatantly false. To gain a + you don't even have to be in the play, to gain corsi you have to personally take a shot.

4) Sometimes teams win despite players (overcoming a poor goalie or a hot goalie overcoming a lousy team performance being the most common example.

5) Corsi effectively measures possession of the puck (as you said). I can not fathom how you don't see that not allowing the other team to have the puck (in either zone) would help you win. That is literally (<---- used correctly here) saying that shooting more and keeping the other team to fewer shots has no bearing on winning.

6) That is why you use more than one stat. No one is saying to ONLY use corsi to evaluate players. xGF for example measures shot danger by factoring in distance, where it was shot from etc. Also sometimes you get beat by a hot goalie. You can dominate all game but just can't beat him (Kristers Gudlevskis being a somewhat famous example), that doesn't mean you didn't dominate the game and if you play that way 82 games a year + playoffs you are going to win most of them (which is the whole point of tracking the stats, to get players who play better and to make systems that work better).
Additionally shooting % can wildly fluctuate. Sometimes you can take good shot after good shot and just not score (for a variety of reasons). One of the earliest development in the stats community (not even advanced stats, just stats in general) was that shooting % can vary and not to overreact to its variance. Nazem Kadri is a perfect example of this.
Either way none of that discounts corsi or underlying metrics as a legitimate tool to evaluate players.

7) See the above, especially the hot goalie bit.

8) Simply not true. Corsi is a stat used to evaluate possession. It is measured by shots taken, not how long you literally hold the puck for. In order to affect corsi you literally have to have the puck and take a shot. I always find it amusing that those who argue against advanced stats often have a less than full understanding of those stats they so vehemently oppose.

9) That is actually the point. No one (credible) is saying these are the only stats and to not use all others, or forgo the eye test completely. They simply measure other aspects of the game. I always like to put it this way: Normal stats measure outcomes, advanced stats measure the process of getting those outcomes.

10) That is literally what they do. Normal stats measure outcomes, advanced stats measure the process of getting those outcomes. They are the eye test crudely put into numbers.

11) Sometimes you get outplayed and still win. This is the age of parity, it happens. When building a team all you can do is give yourself the best chance to win year after year, and constructing a team that dominates on average is the best way to do it.

12) No one is arguing against that. We are saying that underlying metrics are a tool to be used in conjunction with things like the eye test. You are human and only have two eyes, you're going to miss things. The underlying metrics help to show you what you missed, or even accentuate what you saw.

13) untrue see rest of comment (especially 12).

A side note: You are showing your age here. You double spaced all of your sentences lol (that practice has fallen out of use). Not hating; just find it funny.

Sorry it took so long to get back, I honestly just forgot about this post lol.

Edit for additional notes:

1) +/- is bad because it mashes together a bunch of somewhat random stats (5v5, 5v4 etc). It gives no context to anything (whether the player actually did anything), which is the principle thing you are arguing about here. That is what advanced stats are, some of them are basically +/- (corsi is +/- for shots) but specialized to give you a more detailed look.

2) Funny you mention faceoff% as an important stat. Statistically (not underlying metrics, just plain old % and counting) they are largely unimportant. Thats not to say they are never important, just that they are less important than you would think. You also mention what it should be changed to (which is what underlying metrics are for other stats).

Defensive point shares- Hockey Reference

I don't really understand point share enough to effectively comment on it, but it seems the overall point share is what is important (going by the H-R website's description here), which puts Lindell much further down.

Either way, it is one stat and should not be the only one you use or look at, when combined with the rest of the data you'd be hard pressed to say Lindell is the top DFD, or even a top one considering he gets outshot and outshot from more dangerous positions when on the ice.

Actually for a defensive defensman like he is, defensive point shares would obviously be more important.