Interesting, pelech 3 year xGAR (even strength defense) is 3.9, which is better than 91% of NHL defenseman. Keep it up with the confirmation bias!

I won't deny that Rielly had a really lucky year last year. However, his possession numbers were above 50%, his shot share percentage was below 50 but his expected goals were above. So I am not sure what point you are making. Trotz keeping everyone to the outside only matters if thats what is happening but the majority of Islander players had negative expected goal percentages. That doesn't at all paint the picture that the Islanders are terrific defensively, they are pretty good but they don't create enough offense to outweigh what they give up defensively. They have been lucky. TO on the other hand has positive numbers almost across the board and this past season spent a long stretch at around .98 for their PDO.

As I have said many many times, I do believe in advance stats and think they tell a story but you need to understand more about hockey to know how all the pieces fit together. You clearly don't if you did you'd be incredibly worried about the Islanders. There is very little evidence that they are going to keep above water over the long run, they just don't have the talent to compete against better teams. They have a good system that limits some of the problems they have as a team but when the percentages swing back the other way as they always do, the Islanders just don't have the guns to outscore even normal luck.

You talk like someone who would get mad if he found out one of the leafs players read books by Jordan peterson.

I don't spend money on those sites so I can't confirm what you are saying, but like everything else, you ignore everything in favour of whatever 1 singular stat makes you feel better. Expected goals is one of the best factors to determine a players ability. If you create enough offense and defend well enough to have the positive expected goal shares, over 100 games, that results in wins. The Islanders are a negative team in that regard, eventually the lucks going to run out. But please ignore all those stats, insult me for not believing in advanced stats and then use 1 or 2 isolated numbers to make yourself feel good. You're a joke and all the say that.

That is literally exactly what you are doing dude, possession numbers are negative, shot share is negative, percentage of chances is negative and the expected goals are negative. But this one other number means all of that other stuff doesn't matter. Ignoring everything to support your hypothesis is called confirmation bias. You clown.

One or two advanced stats? WAR, GAR, XGAR, SPAR are all better indicators of a good defenseman than the metrics you are using.

hahaha I would go do some more research if I were you. It seems like you have all the time in the world to do so - The metrics you are using to *attempt* to prove that the isles defenseman aren't good prove you know nothing about trotz system and how it negatively affects the islanders D.

That’s a damn good return for marner. I’m impressed with this armchair.

I agree. I think the value makes sense for both teams, but isles would need to make sure Dobson can replace Pulock

So GAR is usefull but it also has some glaring weaknesses and that really becomes apparent when you start digging into the Islanders as an example.

The following quote was taken from this article https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2017/6/16/15774850/advanced-stats-102-what-is-gar-dawson-sprigings-nhl

"While I think the stat is tremendously useful, there are a few things you have to keep in mind when using it. For one, GAR values are estimates - because it uses regression techniques in some places, there is inherent uncertainty in the values output by the system. Those error bars are hidden from view - we don’t really get to see them, and as a result, you have to be careful not to make conclusions based on GAR values that are relatively close to one another.

Along these same lines, sometimes it spits out counterintuitive values, and it’s hard to see exactly why. The complexity of the model means there’s no longer easy mappings from things we consider ‘inputs’ to player value (points, possession ability, etc.) to the GAR output. They’re obviously correlated, but there are now contextual factors (teammates, competition, score usage) included that make the mapping from input to output more opaque. In that way, the model is perhaps more opaque than one would like. However, this is no different from the heavily accepted WAR stats used in baseball. You can break them down into their core components, but it takes a fair bit of effort.

When I asked Sprigings what he thought the biggest weakness of the stat is, he mentions a more conceptual issue, noting that the stat straddles the line between being a measure of ‘true talent’ as opposed to ‘the value a player provided’. Parts of the even strength offense and defense are more a measure of ‘true talent’ but the rest tends to be a measure of what happened. Sprigings brought up an example where assists per 60 minutes are used as one of the inputs to assess even strength offense. That is a measure of what happened. However, Sprigings feels it would make more sense to use something like expected assists, which is a more apt measure of talent.

GAR, in my opinion, also struggles a little bit in divvying up credit between teammates. Sprigings uses robust mathematical techniques to try and separate the effects from teammates, but it is a non-trivial problem, and even the most robust method may struggle if players spend all of their time on ice together and have very little time apart. This can be more pronounced in situations where one of the players doesn’t have a lot of historical data to go off of (for example, rookies)."

What tells me, is that GAR kind of correlates results without showing what made those results which would then ignore certain red flags about a players season infavour of actual results. So Rielly for example he's very obviously more talented than Pulock but the defensive numbers of the leafs were worse and GAR is based too much on end results rather than what made up the results.

So with all that in mind, and diving into the on ice play metrics of different players, you are 1000% looking for confirmation bias by ignoring every single red flag in the Islanders play and only accepting stats that make you feel more secure in your opinion. Which is exactly what confirmation bias is.

No it really isn't.

Thats not really how hockey works. If you give up too many chances and don't create enough chances you get negative expected goals. If you have negative expected goals, you lose more than you win. Trotz's system limits chances yes, but the Islanders also just don't create offense to outpace the chances they do give up. The numbers show this clearly and eventually the team is going have its luck turn and this team operating on a negative PDO is a lottery team.

Dobson will absolutely supplant Pulock, he was one of the only positive players on the team last year.

😂😂😂

That’s one stat down, now do WAR and SPAR! Cmon buddy it seems like you have all day!

So far everything I have taken the time to look into that you use to claim how awesome your team is has proven to be poor. Are you sure you want me to keep blowing up your cherry picked bull****

That is exactly how this works. If you knew trotz system, he preaches quality over quantity. So while the isles get out shot most games, they usually get the majority of the high danger chances.

1. I live rent free in your head
2. You have 0 emotional intelligence, you always think you're right

Why does Carolina do this if that pick is a top 10 pick?

That Marner trade is DISGUSTING for Toronto.

LMAO don't defend it.

Don't worry the islanders wouldn't make this trade either.

According to natural statstrick, they do not win the high danger chances battle either. Last season and for part of this season they had way above average save percentages in those areas and it isn't sustainable over the long run. Most hockey people have a lot of trouble with War and Gar due to it being harder to correlate and seems to not always represent a player's skill properly.

Lol you are such a joke. You are a huge hypocrite and all around just a bitter little baby. Lol calls me passive aggressive.

Its the condition on the pick. Its top 10 protected

lol lets all just chill tf out