Robert Ethan

Subban continues to clean up on the annual Pre Season Internet Fanboy Awards.

Well, there you go, the ultimate "analytics geeks" have spoken. I guess we can safely conclude that the Habs won the trade and close this thread.

Things that can't be quantified numerically may be classed as "intangible" but they are still real. Psychology is a recognized field of science. Not to mention that all the "numerical evidence" being brought up to support Subban's case cover an extremely narrow spectrum of the hockey performance chart. I'd venture to say that Weber has as many numerical advantages as disadvantages if you get into it. BUT I certainly don't want to "get into it". The deal is done, and I think it will work out well for all parties involved. That is the purpose of a sports trade. Not to "win" or "lose".

Just to be fair, can someone put up some Subban Yaps and Turtles videos to answer the Weber Fights videos?

But I think your prospect rankings would probably undermine the usefulness of analytics in comparing players. Take the case of Scherbak and McCarron last season. Pretty sure most or all of the analytics would show McCarron to be the better player in the AHL as a rookie. But those who think Sherbak is the better prospect would counter by saying, "Well, he's younger, not as physically developed, played with less talented linemates, has better hands" etc. The McCarron fans would counter counter by saying "Ya, but Mike is much bigger, plays a better all round game, is good on faceoffs, brings a physical presence" etc. There is truth in all of those statements, but whatever side you take, analytics would have virtually nothing to do with your choice between them. Why should it be different comparing Weber and Subban? Subban (presumably) comes out ahead on some set of analytics, but probably less so than McCarron compared to Scherbak. So again the argument devolves into comparing "intangibles". Presuming that one guy or the other is better for team chemistry, or provides more toughness, or is a better leader, or is more likely to be healthy going forward, or is a better style fit... yada yada. Statistical analysis would (and should) have very little impact on the choice between the two. I'm not sure how far these models go back in time, but I'd venture to say the numbers of both players varied over the years and one wasn't always ahead of the other.

@dlbair - Sorry if I seem too aggressive, when I comment on anything I assume that everyone realizes it's an opinion. I don't try to make it seem otherwise.

"..the team that won the Cup had a top 5 Corsi". (I can't quote on this comp for some reason). I really don't know what Corsi entails, and when I tried to read the post above my eyelids drooped shut, but I take it a "high" score is good. But IF the team won the Cup, logic says their analytic scores would be high, right? It means they had a season good enough to make the playoffs and a lineup talented enough to take them through those playoffs. It just underlines my point - THE PLAY ON THE ICE DETERMINES THE ANALYTIC SCORES. Not vice versa. You could just as well say every player who won the Art Ross Trophy had the highest point total in the league that year. True, but it proves absolutely nothing in terms of who will win the next Art Ross Trophy or the one after that, etc.

To me the analytics crowd puts the cart before the horse. The numbers are deriven from the way the players perform on ice, and change constantly from day to day, game to game, year to year. It's not Madden where the player performs indefinitely within the parameters of the numbers alloted to him. Once things get "real" on the ice, the numbers are instantly out dated and redundant. It's a straightforward concept and I can't fathom the difficulty many seem to have in grasping it.

Nate Beaulieau not big on analytics or the Subban whiners I see.

.. and you're like SOOO 11 year old school girl... "OMG! OMG! OMG!... I just can't..."

If everyone keeps their nose jammed up the ass of the sheep in front of them, prospect rankings would never change. Every player would perform exactly in accordance with his draft position for the rest of his career. I don't know about 9/11, but I can tell you that won't happen based on previous examples. But hey, if you enjoy the ambiance of the sheep in front of you, and get a bit of a thrill from the attention of the sheep behind you......

Someone brought up statistics, Sherbak had the same # of points over that stretch and was -4. So, yeah, at the end of March of last year I'd say Lernout was definitely "ahead" of Scherbak if you want to use stats.

The last 10 games Lernout played in the AHL prior to his callup he scored 5 points and was +4, so he earned the promotion. Extrapolated over a season that's 40 points and +30 or so.

I'd bet my house (if I had one) that Lernout plays more NHL games than Hudon or Lekhonen in his career. Although that bet would take some time to settle. In terms of progression, at the time of the draft Sherbak was well ahead of Lernout, obviously, drafted much higher, rated higher by all scouts. One year later I think they're seasons were relatively even. Sherbak, as an offensive forward scored twice as many points as Lernout the shutdown defenseman. That is what you would expect, in terms of offense. But Brett was averaging just under 30 minutes per game for S.C. that year, so he was just as valuable to his team as Scherbak in Everett. Last year in S.J. I think Lernout had the better overall season, he established himself as a trustworthy defensive presence in the AHL at barely 20 years old. Once again Scherbak had double the point total, but I'd bet Sylvain Lebefvre regarded Brett as a more valuable component of his team. I see those trends continuing, although Lernout's knee injury and rehab will throw a hiccup into his progression this coming season.

"Upside" would favor Lernout, I'd say. He has made more significant strides in each of the seasons since he and Scherbak were drafted, he is bigger and larger players tend to reach their peak later, plus he is a defenseman who tend to take longer to mature than forwards. Statistics are difficult to compare between the two positions, but last season Brett played nearly a full season with a cumulative -4 while often playing defensive zone situations. Sherbak was -26 in two thirds of the time and he certainly wasn't playing a checking role. The "eye test" is notoriously unreliable due to bias and preconception. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.