Jump to content

Subban traded to Nashville


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

"I'd like to chime in on this Weber-Suban debate... been awhile since I've posted here, so bare with me...

Despite the rumors, like many of you I was surprised they actually pulled the trigger and traded PK. Though I’ve stayed away from this place for quite some time (because it became the Therrien forum and was no longer a Habs forum), when the trade went down, I came here to soak up the juicy gossip. So I’ve silently been following the arguments for and against the trade. As per usual, a lot of buffoonery… ha-ha… However, I’ve noticed the usual loudmouths (things never change!) either ignorantly obfuscating or intentionally misusing analytics to argue for their position. In particular, I find these kinds of posts particularly egregious:

“It's not about stories and it's not about sides, that's the part you don't seem to get...

Some numbers are more relevant than others. Mathman is not a "PK superfan" he's looking at the numbers and drawing his conclusions from there. From an analytics perspective we lost this trade. That's black and white. The sooner people accept this the sooner we can move on to a more meaningful discussion. Weber's numbers are better on the PP but that's partially explained by Subban playing in a ridiculous system. Pulling out things like +/- is a sign that somebody doesn't understand stats or is willfully ignoring their meaning... THAT is an example of somebody trying to make stats fit an argument.

If there is a "side" that wants to argue for Weber, they should probably avoid trying to argue that he's better numbers wise because he clearly isn't. They should also avoid saying his analytics aren't in decline because they clearly are. So we're left with things like "intangibles"....

If I were to argue "for" Weber, I would try the route of saying that the analytics might improve in Montreal for some reason. I would argue that analtyics don't capture everything (a valid argument that has been used.) And I might argue that his relative numbers would be worse because there was a good supporting cast in Nashville, but I wouldn't try to argue that his numbers were better than Subban's because... they aren't.”

The numbers show Weber in decline. They do not show Subban in decline. There is no "round and round we go" here. We have some people pointing to numbers that are real and others who are willfully ignoring them.”

“When he was on the ice the puck was usually in the other team's zone and we actually had a chance to score. He was responsible for 60+ percent of our offense and when he wasn't out there the puck was usually in our end. He made all of our players better and this is borne out in the numbers you either don't understand or willfully dismiss.”

“Again this has been rebuked many times jerry, just seems like you like to argue without verifying facts. It has been proven that when Subban is on the ice, the team generates 60% more offence and they produce significantly less when he is off the ice. When WEBER is on the ice his team produced less than when he was off the ice and that's with a better forward group Nashville has.

You need to check.”

The above comments are misplaced because you’re looking at numbers completely free of any context. That is to say, you’re looking at numbers at a high level of abstraction and then using them to draw big conclusions. While I think it can certainly be illuminating to look at analytics to glean insights, this kind of statistical chicanery does no one any favors: it makes those using them this way look untrustworthy and it gives those trying to use them sincerely a bad name. So since I’ve only seen people pick and choose statistics here and there, I thought it would be informative to try to provide a more comprehensive – and contextually relevant – analysis.

OK, now since an appeal to analytics without actually walking people through them is no different than an appeal to authority (Why is there thunder? Shaman: Because the Gods are fighting! Why is this a bad trade? Guy on HFboards: Because one player has got a higher Relative Corsi number!), in responding to the aforementioned claims, I thought I’d do my best to actually walk people step-by-step through the numbers. Before doing that, however, a little background on Relative Corsi.

Relative Corsi in Context


Now, those who say we lost this trade often point to the analytics. That is, they say it’s clear we lost this trade because: 1) PK’s Relative Corsi shows he’s a far better defenseman at driving possession than Weber’s Relative Corsi does, and 2) Weber’s declining Relative Corsi over time shows he has clearly declined in skills and/or abilities. These claims, for example, are all strongly suggested in the above quotes.

Now, making these kinds of statements based on Relative Corsi (a proxy for how much a player drives possession) alone is just poor reasoning. That is to say, abstracted from its context, Relative Corsi doesn’t tell us much. To better appreciate what Relative Corsi is telling us, we really need to assess Relative Corsi in the context of three other statistics: Quality of Competition (REL QoC), Quality of Teammates (REL QoT), and Offensive Zone Start %.

The idea is that the lower the Quality of Competition a player plays against, the higher the Quality of Teammates a player plays with, and the higher the Offensive Zone Start % a player enjoys, the more likely he’ll enjoy a higher Relative Corsi.

Now, I think, even more important than the absolute value of these statistics (as it’s debatable the extent to which the absolute value of these statistics allow us to directly compare players across teams) is where a player ranks relative to his teammates. The latter tells us about the role of that player on the team and, hence, gives us some context with which we can evaluate their Relative Corsi number. Thus, for example, a player might have a very high Relative Corsi BUT it may also be the case that relative to his teammates he is playing against weak opposition, with strong teammates, and is enjoying a high number of offensive zone starts. Given the latter context, of course, he should have a higher Relative Corsi number.

OK, and here is a nice little primer on these statistics: http://nhlnumbers.com/2014/9/1/the-n...ts-cheat-sheet

Finally, the data for this come from: http://www.behindthenet.ca

Claim: Subban is better at Driving Possession than Weber


To fairly assess this claim, again, you really need to compare their Relative Corsi numbers in the same context, that is, where they played against equally strong competition, with equally skilled teammates, and where they had an equal number of offensive zone starts. Now, in analyzing Weber on these variables, I discovered a Tale of Two Webers: whereas for the last four seasons he’s been tasked primarily with a shutdown role, for the four seasons before that he was tasked primarily with offensive duties. The latter is fortuitous because it means we can directly compare both Subban’s and Weber’s Relative Corsi numbers when they’ve been tasked with offensive responsibilities.

So, again, to do this I assessed Quality of Competition, Quality of Teammates, Offensive Zone Start %, and Relative Corsi for each season for Weber (first four seasons) and Subban (last four seasons). And, to simplify, I averaged across the four seasons for each player. And again, for each statistic, I’ve looked at where the players have ranked (average rank for four seasons rounded to closest whole number) with respect to their teammates (seen in brackets).

Weber the First Four Years

Quality of Competition: .96 (5th highest on team; 2nd highest for defenseman)
Quality of Teammates: 1.93 (3rd highest on team; 2nd highest for defenseman)
Off Zone Start %: 45.65 (6th highest on team; 3rd highest for defensemen)
Rel Corsi: 9.68% (3rd highest on team)

Weber played against decent quality of competition; it seems he played with a high quality of teammates; curiously, he started far more often in the defensive than offensive zone; and, curiously, it seems he was not necessarily the go to defenseman for offense (being 3rd highest in this regard for defenseman). And he enjoyed a high Relative Corsi throughout these years (9.68%).

Note:

I have this data elsewhere, but it shows that his quality of competition increased from one year to the next. In the first two years it seems other defenseman were tasked with shutdown roles. I’m not sure in the latter two years if he was tasked with a shutdown role or whether he and Suter were simply matched against the best lines (i.e., power against power).

Subban Over the Last Four Years

Quality of Competition: 0.597 (4th highest on team; 3rd highest for defenseman)
Quality of Teammates: 1.02 (7th highest on team; 3rd highest for defenseman)
Off Zone Start %: 50.93 (5th highest on team; 1st highest for defenseman)
Rel Corsi: 10.63% (4th highest on the team)

So like Weber during his first four seasons, though he played against decent competition, it seems others, at least at times, were tasked with shutdown roles; he also played with decent, though certainly not stellar, teammates; he enjoyed an even number of offensive and defensive zone starts; and it seems he was the go to defenseman for offense (being 1st in this regard for defenseman in each of the last four seasons). And, like Weber, enjoyed a high Relative Corsi (10.63%) throughout these years.

Comment

Though we could quibble about who had it easier or was in a more favorable position (Subban because he was playing against slightly easier competition and had far more offensive zone starts, or Weber because he played with slightly higher quality teammates), I think it’s fair to conclude that both Weber and Subban, at least using Relative Corsi as a metric, excel equally well in driving possession when called upon to do so.

I thought it might be interesting to also look at this in a slightly different way: to look at where Weber and Subban ranked next to other defenseman in the league on these variables for each of these four years (his rank/number of defenseman in analysis). Seasons are ranked from most distant to most recent.

Weber Quality of Competition (First 4 Years)

41/110 (Medium)
20/108 (High)
16/112 (Very High)
10/98 (Very High)

Weber Quality of Teammates (First 4 Years)

4/110 (Very High)
13/108 (Very High)
9/112 (Very High)
18/98 (High)

Weber OFF Zone Start % (First 4 Years)

71/110 (Low)
94/108 (Very Low)
95/112 (Very Low)
84/98 (Very Low)

Weber Rel Corsi (First 4 Years)

5/110 (Very High)
20/108 (High)
20/112 (High)
4/98 (Very High)

Comment

So relative to other defenseman, Weber faced some high quality competition, but he also played with some high quality teammates; he had some terrible offensive zone start numbers, however; and he had some pretty fantastic Relative Corsi numbers.

PK Quality of Competition (Last 4 Years)

79/108 (Low)
55/106 (Medium)
28/100 (High)
43/151 (High)

PK Quality of Teammates (Last 4 Years)

78/108 (Low)
44/106 (Medium)
5/100 (Very High)
86/151 (Medium)

PK OFF Zone Start % (Last 4 Years)

22/108 (High)
78/106 (Low)
44/100 (Medium)
37/151 (High)

PK Rel Corsi (Last 4 Years)

7/108 (Very High)
7/106 (Very High)
1/100 (Very High – Amazing!)
55/151 (Medium)

Comment

So relative to other defenseman, PK faced a mixed-bag as far as quality of competition goes (Therrien seemed to get him favorable matchups during his Norris season), and he also played with a mixed-bag regarding the quality of his teammates; except for one season, his offensive zone starts have been pretty favorable (especially, again, his Norris season); and, of course, he has some pretty impressive Relative Corsi numbers.

Again, though we can quibble over who had it easier, the fact is that in comparison to other defensemen throughout these years, they both put up some pretty impressive Relative Corsi numbers.

Conclusion

So for those saying that Weber is somehow worse than Subban in terms of driving possession, the statistics – when looked at in context – just don’t back it up.

Claim: Weber is Clearly Declining

Now, some are claiming Weber is on a decline and that this is clearly shown by the fact that his Relative Corsi numbers have dropped over time. However, as I said, in analyzing Weber’s data, I noticed starting four years ago that his role dramatically changed in that he seemed to became Nashville’s go to shutdown defenseman. It’s not at all surprising, therefore, that (as shown by that graph some have posted) his Relative Corsi numbers have gone from positive in the first four years to negative in the second four years. But don’t take my word for it, take a look at the numbers:

Weber the Second Four Years

Quality of Competition: 1.48 (2nd highest on team; 1st highest for defenseman)
Quality of Teammates: -.55 (8th highest on team; 3rd highest for defenseman)
Off Zone Start %: 45.90 (10th highest on team; 4th highest for defenseman)
Rel Corsi: -4.50% (9th highest on team)

Comparing the absolute numbers for these statistics to his first four years, it’s pretty dramatic how his quality of competition went up and how his quality of teammates went down. And looking at the rankings, it’s pretty clear there has been a change in role for Weber. That is, it seems pretty clear his job over these years has been to contain the best the other team could throw at them, and not to generate offense. And this is particularly evident for the last two seasons: in his first two seasons here, he was 1st for defenseman in Quality of Teammates; in the latter two seasons, he was 5th for defenseman in Quality Of Teammates. And to give you an idea of just how dire it has been for Weber, let’s take a closer look at just how tough he had it during his worst season in regards to his Relative Corsi numbers, namely 2014-2015.

Season 2014 – 2015 (Analysis includes 70 games or more: 12 players)

Quality of Competition: 1.3 (2/12 highest on team; tied 1st highest for defenseman)
Quality of Teammates: -2.1 (11/12 highest on team; 5th highest for defenseman)
Off Zone Start %: 46.30 (8/12 highest on team; 3rd highest for defenseman)
Rel Corsi: -9.30% (10/12 highest on the team; 4th highest for defenseman)

Comment

You can see this season Weber was playing against the highest quality of competition (only Paul Gaustad on his team was higher). The quality of teammates with which he played, however, was incredibly low (only Paul Gaustad was lower). Indeed, it looks like he was consistently playing with the worst teammates. And as has always been the case for Weber, he started in the defensive zone far more often than not.

Now, looking at this, it is very easy to understand why his Relative Corsi is so low. Consider, for example, his fellow defensemen, Seth Jones and Mattias Ekholm, who had Quality of Competition of .3 and -.2 (considerably lower; and no one faced easier competition than Seth Jones!), Quality of Teammates of 3.1 and 1.2 (that’s a massive disparity compared to the quality of teammates Weber played with!), and offensive zone starts of 54.8% and 54.9% (again, the disparity is huge!).

It’s very easy to see, therefore, why their Relative Corsi, 9.5 and 4.1, is so much higher than that of Weber (And why in that graph that’s been posted he’s so far below baseline in his Relative Corsi numbers for this season). I mean, given the context, it would be patently absurd to use his Relative Corsi here to argue: 1) he is somehow a worse defenseman than the other defenseman on his team, and 2) that this indicates some kind of decline in skills or abilities on his part. Indeed, you could argue the reason why these other players did as well as they did this season was precisely because Weber was playing the toughest minutes. Indeed, someone who knows far more about the predators than I already has:

http://predators.nhl.com/club/blogpo...t.htm?id=36127

Now, not that you need any more convincing at this point, but to further put this in perspective, I looked at where he ranked next to other defenseman in the league on these variables for each of the past four years (his rank/number of defenseman in analysis):

Weber Quality of Competition (Last 4 Years)

10/108 (Very High)
4/106 (Very High)
7/100 (Very High)
9/151 (Very High)

Weber Quality of Teammates (Last 4 Years)

85/108 (Low)
57/106 (Medium)
100/100 (Very Low – Dead last – Oh, come on!)
136/151 (Very Low – Pretty brutal!)

Weber OFF Zone Start % (Last 4 Years)

101/108 (Very Low)
95/106 (Very Low)
69/100 (Low)
55/151 (Medium)

Weber Rel Corsi (Last 4 Years)

61/108 (Medium)
70/100 (Low)
87/100 (Very Low)
103/151 (Low)

Holy Crap! So the last four years Weber has played against the highest quality of opposition, with the lowest quality of teammates, and has endured some of the poorest offensive zone start numbers amongst all defenseman in the league. And just compare these rankings (especially quality of teammates) to his first four years – not even close! So you’re seriously questioning why his Relative Corsi has dropped off? And you’re seriously suggesting this represents a decline in skills and/or abilities? Come on now!

Interesting Note

Given PK put up his highest Relative Corsi numbers the season he played with the strongest Teammates and given how much Weber’s Relative Corsi numbers plummeted over the last four seasons where he played with terrible teammates (and put up his worst Relative Corsi numbers the season he played with the worst teammates), I wondered about the relationship between the two variables. So I just ran correlations for the two variables for all players for each of the last two seasons and, sure enough, I found some reasonably strong correlations (r’s of .45 or so). So quality of teammates seems pretty important for driving Relative Corsi! That’s interesting because some suggest this statistic isolates the extent to which a player individually drives possession. Many have lamented this interpretation, however (see link below for thoughts). I can see why – teammates matter!

http://drivingplay.blogspot.ca/2011/...corsi-rel.html

Overall Conclusion

So whoever has been using Weber’s Relative Corsi numbers to argue: 1) he is a worse defenseman at driving possession than either PK or his fellow teammates, and 2) he is declining in his skills and abilities, please stop! There is just NO statistical support based on Relative Corsi WHEN VIEWED IN CONTEXT for these assertions.

One more thing, looking at analytics is fun but, really, I don’t think there’s anything here that a discerning observer wouldn’t have told you. That is to say, I suspect for a discerning observer these numbers would pretty much confirm what they already knew. I know there’s been a big debate here between seasoned observers and analytics guys, but there shouldn’t be. I’d say if there’s a discrepancy between what the eyes of the experts (and NOT fans or journalists who are disposed to see things as they want to see them) are telling us and the numbers, then we better recheck those numbers.

(huff... puff... ha-ha...) At any rate, at least as far as the numbers go, hopefully this brings some clarity to the Weber-Subban debate. For what it’s worth, the trade initially took me aback; I really hadn’t paid much attention to Weber, honestly, and I didn’t have much of an opinion on him (except, of course, what we all know of him from his reputation). So, for myself, looking at these numbers was illuminating. I can say I’m getting quite excited about the upcoming season – this guy really seems like a stud!"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the wall of text guys. I had come across this guys post a while ago on the HF forums in which he tries to put the stats regarding Subban/Weber in the right context (which I have been hammering on about for a little bit). I personally thought he did a good job trying to do so. It certainly brings a little insight into the numbers.

Cheers!

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?p=121293267#post121293267

Edited by Scott462
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:blush:

You seem to have a hard time fathoming anyone that has a different opinion than yours. It's hardly as straightforward as you suggest, otherwise teams wouldn't be investing time, money, and resources into further development and refinement of analytics. Obviously there are a lot of people who think there is considerable value in them.

Let's suppose they are useless as a predictive future model as you suggest. Would they not still have at least some value as looking at a players' history, much like you would look at goals, assists, etc?

I'm not big into analytics myself - I lean more towards using them as a historical comparison than as a predictive model (and even then, I don't often do even that) but admittedly my knowledge isn't deep enough for me to argue whether or not one usage is better than the other. So rather than post an ill-informed opinion on here, I don't comment on them much.

A friendly word of advice - Not everyone is going to see things exactly the way you do. That doesn't make them wrong, right, or an animal that says 'baa'. Part of the enjoyment I and many other posters have on this board is the discussion of different ideas and opinions. Look no further than this thread where there are considerable differences of opinion but for the most part, pretty good discussion about each sides' viewpoint.

You tend to come off particularly strong towards those who don't share the same viewpoint as you. As I'm sure you've seen by now, that doesn't go over too well and there's no prize for having the most extreme opinion. I'd encourage you to be more open-minded towards those who see things differently or have a different opinion than you do. I think you'll find posters will be more receptive and less hostile in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe just give a bit more thought and effort and find some new material when posting an insult for Dumb or Dumber. Not that I don't beat dead horse often, so bit hypocritical I know but that is what I was getting at. That's all.

He'll have to wait until the first game for new material about these clowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the relative corsi, the linemates and the quality of competition issue.

There were a couple articles I posted the other day that basically refute that whole argument.

Are the rankings different on zone starts? sure, but they are so minor, and the differences in corsi are so huge that they just don't explain the differences. It just doesn't work. Second when we look at other defencemen and compare their zone starts vs corsi against, the correlation just isn't strong enough. It doesn't explain the differenced.

The second issue.... teammates.

The conclusion being made is this... Weber has a low corsi cause he plays a lot with gaustad who is dragging him down.

HOwever lets remember what corsi is, shot attempts for and shot attempts against.

Why is Gaustad's corsi low? He actually is very good at preventing shots against, and much better than other all the other lines on the predators. His corsi is low cause he generates like 0 offense.

Weber, why is his corsi low? Its all shots against. Weber is great at creating offense. What is dragging him down is all the shots he's giving up.

So playing with Gaustad is not the reason that Weber has the shitty corsi... the reason Weber has the shitty corsi is that basically across the board, no matter who he plays with, whether its Gaustad's line, or Smith's line, or Ribeiro's line, or Johanssen's line... the shots against go up. Thats what is killing Weber's relative number, so you can't blame it on his teammates cause the factors you'd expect to see, aren't the ones actually happening.

Lastly there was a great article by EOTP that actually went into the eyetest of why Weber's corsi is so low. The reason is that he doesn't get the puck out of the zone as quickly as other defencemen... instead of being able to move the puck up the ice himself, he needs to pass it to his partner to move the puck up the ice. While this is normally successful, it adds one more pass into the equation. Passes are inherently risky and so adding one more pass means he coughs the puck up or josi coughs the puck up.

One more thing. Subban played 14 less games. Despite this, Subban still touched the puck over 600 times more over the course of the season, so he created more zone exits.

All of this led to shots against, and it can't all be explained by zone starts and teammate usage. A small part of it... yes... but not to the levels of difference in shots against that we see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:blush:

There seems to be a lot of things you can't fathom.... I think the problem is on your end, and not on the other end.

Especially when the fact remains, in every year that corsi has been recorded (except 1) the team that won the cup has a top 5 corsi. The only exception, the 2009 Penguins who had a very shitty corsi under therrien, when Therrien was fired and Bylsma took over (plus Gonchar returned from injury); they were a top 5 team in the second half.

Also, The team with the better regular season corsi wins the playoff series 70% of the time.

You can try to use the platitudes to dismiss the stats, but the fact is that they have been proven to be predictive.

Also players who are good, usually do follow development curves based on ages give or take... we know that if a young player is good, in most cases, he's going to get better in his prime years, plateau, stay there for a bit, and then decline. We have general ranges and ideas where they are going.

Nothing is perfect, but those seem pretty good at predicting winners and predicting career development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this thread is played out.

That said, the notion that I can't separate players I like from a rational analysis of moves relating to them is just asinine. I loved Kovy - he was great fun - but supported his replacement by Gio, I loved Koivu but thought (wrongly, as it turned out) that it was time to turn the page on that era, etc.. I'm not a 10 year old; I want the team to succeed and support ANY move that furthers that end in my judgement.

I could just as easily accuse YOU of having an irrational dislike of flashy players, or of harbouring craven need to defer to management, and then say that that 'will never allow you to be objective' about trading away flashy ol' Subban.

Objective analysis is that Subban is a better overall defenceman than Weber in a multitude of ways, is younger, and has a better contract. It's the defenders of this trade who continually find themselves thrown back on misty, hopeful arguments about 'intangibles,' vague and unsubstantiated rumours about PK being a jerk, rejection of statistics as somehow irrelevant to their 'gut' feeling about which players they like, etc..

Habs rule's succinct summation says it all.

No offense, was a bit crappy rushed post; yes, for sure can accuse me of not being overly fond of some flashy players (like those who give themselves nicknames like NatetheGreat as a rookie), some I simply don't respect. But, I didn't dislike Subban, wouldn't of dealt him and really didn't think he would be traded. I disliked a bit of his game, but overall how could you complain too much, he is an awesome player.

But favourite Habs at the moment or recently still likely would of been Gallagher, Price, Markov

(got Pateryn listed because would like to see him develop to be a regular (partially out of spite of Pierre McGuire) and Weber in anticipation of what he should bring.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the point here though.

He is comparing and bringing into context the Quality of Competition (REL QoC), Quality of Teammates (REL QoT), and Offensive Zone Start % and using it all together to make an informed opinion on why the Corsi is the way it is.

Couple that with comparing Webers first four years where he enjoyed great Corsi playing with great teammates, facing tough competition and enjoying a decent amount of offensive zone face offs.

Compared to his last four years where he played with the worst teammates, always faced the toughest competition(tied for most in the league) and had the fewest offensive zone starts, and his Corsi plummeted. There has to be a correlation here.

You did bring up a couple articles that prove some of your points but when used all together in a general context of Webers progression from being a mostly offensively used defensmen to being used solely for defensive roles it's glaringly obvious to anyone without an agenda that this would explain the drop off.

In my opinion anyway people can make up their own minds.

I personally think Weber still has a lot to show in his career and will work his butt off to prove it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the wall of text guys. I had come across this guys post a while ago on the HF forums in which he tries to put the stats regarding Subban/Weber in the right context (which I have been hammering on about for a little bit). I personally thought he did a good job trying to do so. It certainly brings a little insight into the numbers.

Cheers!

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?p=121293267#post121293267

You cant expect anyone to read that post to the end do you? You lost me early on, any chance you would have a coles note version for lazy people like me? :tumbleweed:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is

I think you are missing the point here though.

He is comparing and bringing into context the Quality of Competition (REL QoC), Quality of Teammates (REL QoT), and Offensive Zone Start % and using it all together to make an informed opinion on why the Corsi is the way it is.

Couple that with comparing Webers first four years where he enjoyed great Corsi playing with great teammates, facing tough competition and enjoying a decent amount of offensive zone face offs.

Compared to his last four years where he played with the worst teammates, always faced the toughest competition(tied for most in the league) and had the fewest offensive zone starts, and his Corsi plummeted. There has to be a correlation here.

You did bring up a couple articles that prove some of your points but when used all together in a general context of Webers progression from being a mostly offensively used defensmen to being used solely for defensive roles it's glaringly obvious to anyone without an agenda that this would explain the drop off.

In my opinion anyway people can make up their own minds.

I personally think Weber still has a lot to show in his career and will work his butt off to prove it

Do those things have some effect? of course they do.

And they've been looked into.

And while yes there is an effect; it does not "explain the dropoff", not totally anyways.

The drop off is so large and so dramatic and the issues here are so small in terms of their actual effect that its only a fraction of the drop.

What does the relative corsi show? It shows a guy who went from an elite first pairing guy to actually being below third pairing level. It shows a guy who shouldn't be in the league.

Does anyone believe that Weber is actually below third pairing level and doesn't belong in the NHL? No, of course not. This is a good example of showing where the advanced stats and the eye test should work together.

So you look at the eye test and you see these issues... 1) he gives up a lot of shots but many are from the outside 2) he plays a lot of bad zone starts, 3) he plays with Gaustad; etc.... etc....

and then you break it down. How much effect is each one having. And that brings weber back up to being a borderline first pairing/second pairing guy defensively; but elite offensive guy. But it doesn't bring him all the way back to being one of top defensive defensemen in the world (which is where he was four years ago).

There has been a drop off. The decline has started.

Which is what scares the out of people.

No one is saying that he's garbage.... what I am saying is this... after looking at Corsi, and Qual Comp, and zone exits, and zone starts, and the number of times he touches the puck, and passing success rate and a number of other factors he is

1) Still an excellent player, but...

2) Not as good as he used to be.

3) Not as good as PK Subban currently is.

4) Likely already starting a slow decline

So thats what is concerning here. Weber would be a great player if say we acquired him for Petry + our 9th overall draft pick (just a hypothetical example). He would be an upgrade on our blue line and we'd be all in at going for it now, and have two legit number 1 guys kinda like Anaheim with Niedermayer and Pronger, and we'd be looking at a cup contender.

But thats not what we did.

We traded for a legit very good player. But gave up the better, younger player, who has more long term upside.

By any measure that makes the trade shitty... it doesn't make Weber shitty, but it makes the trade poor value.

=========

One other thing.. I've long said this about analytics... there is no one magic number. You can't look at Relative Corsi and say boom Subban's better, I'm done. The writer of that post is 100% right on this point. You have to dig deeper into PDO, QComp, QTeam, ZS, zone entries and exits, and a bunch of other stuff. There is no magic number that tells you who is better, you have to do an analysis of many numbers.. Thats why its analytics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Personally I think it does explain the drop off especially when looking at the fact that during the first four years Weber had great corsi while playing with the best teammates, facing tough comp, and enjoying good offensive zone starts. Compared to his last four years having bad corsi while playing with the worst teammates, facing the toughest comp, and having the fewest on his team for offensive zone starts. This will affect the numbers.

2. No like I said what this shows is that Weber went from being used primarily for an offensive role in the first four years to being used solely for a shut down defensive role which of course will affect his corsi.

3. Personally I have seen a lot not just around here but in general that people think Weber has a great "eye test" so I think a lot of people will disagree with you there.

The decline is obviously with the way he has been used while with Nashville over the course of his career, he is 31 and still in his prime.

I know you are not saying he's garbage but I don't think you are looking at this the right way, I have never said that Weber is better than PK not once. I think they are both elite but have different styles and are used by their teams in different ways. I don't know if I would make the trade personally but that's not my call, I love PK loved him the first time I saw him play but I am also a fan of Weber from his reputation and from the Olympics and him blasting that puck through the net(how cool was that). So personally I think we gave up an amazing D man but we got another stud back in Weber and maybe he fits the system the habs are going for.

I honestly appreciate our discussions commandant I can tell your a really intelligent guy probably a lot smarter than me..haha

Cheers mate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cant expect anyone to read that post to the end do you? You lost me early on, any chance you would have a coles note version for lazy people like me? :tumbleweed:

Well me and commandant are going back and forth about it and I think I got the jist of the post but honestly I would implore you to give her a read it really is quite insightful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Personally I think it does explain the drop off especially when looking at the fact that during the first four years Weber had great corsi while playing with the best teammates, facing tough comp, and enjoying good offensive zone starts. Compared to his last four years having bad corsi while playing with the worst teammates, facing the toughest comp, and having the fewest on his team for offensive zone starts. This will affect the numbers.

2. No like I said what this shows is that Weber went from being used primarily for an offensive role in the first four years to being used solely for a shut down defensive role which of course will affect his corsi.

3. Personally I have seen a lot not just around here but in general that people think Weber has a great "eye test" so I think a lot of people will disagree with you there.

The decline is obviously with the way he has been used while with Nashville over the course of his career, he is 31 and still in his prime.

I know you are not saying he's garbage but I don't think you are looking at this the right way, I have never said that Weber is better than PK not once. I think they are both elite but have different styles and are used by their teams in different ways. I don't know if I would make the trade personally but that's not my call, I love PK loved him the first time I saw him play but I am also a fan of Weber from his reputation and from the Olympics and him blasting that puck through the net(how cool was that). So personally I think we gave up an amazing D man but we got another stud back in Weber and maybe he fits the system the habs are going for.

I honestly appreciate our discussions commandant I can tell your a really intelligent guy probably a lot smarter than me..haha

Cheers mate!

1) You certainly are entitled to think what you want. I'm just saying this is not something I think, this is not an opinion I'm presenting... I'm saying that people have done the research on how much of an effect each of these factors has over 100s and 100s of players, and over multiple seasons, and that research indicates that it doesn't explain the drop. You can think what you want, and thats fine... but I'm telling you that my post isn't based on opinions, its based on numbers and research. Thats the thing with analytics, its not about what people think, the numbers are the numbers.

You can think there is more to it than the numbers show.

But at the end of the day.. .going purely on analytics and factoring in all these factors... corsi, qcomp, zstarts, qteam, etc.... even when you factor in multiple things, the numbers show subban ahead.

2.) You are right, his role changed and this will effect his corsi. The issue is that his corsi has fallen more than what just what it should if there was a role change and teammate change and opponent change and no other factors.

3.) It depends on what you value in the eye test. Each individual has a different eye test, as we all value different things. If you go by old school factors, clear the crease, tough in the corners, big slap shot. Weber is great at those, so some will say he has a great eye test. If you want a little more than that (and I do) and factor in skating and stickhandling and passing... well then, his eye test is still very good, but you see the reasons for the drop off.

4.) That the declining number is solely based on external factors and no decline on Weber's part is just not supported when running all the numbers.

I appreciate the discussion as well, and don't sell yourself short on the intelligence side. I also appreciate that we can disagree without attacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) You certainly are entitled to think what you want. I'm just saying this is not something I think, this is not an opinion I'm presenting... I'm saying that people have done the research on how much of an effect each of these factors has over 100s and 100s of players, and over multiple seasons, and that research indicates that it doesn't explain the drop. You can think what you want, and thats fine... but I'm telling you that my post isn't based on opinions, its based on numbers and research. Thats the thing with analytics, its not about what people think, the numbers are the numbers.

You can think there is more to it than the numbers show.

But at the end of the day.. .going purely on analytics and factoring in all these factors... corsi, qcomp, zstarts, qteam, etc.... even when you factor in multiple things, the numbers show subban ahead.

2.) You are right, his role changed and this will effect his corsi. The issue is that his corsi has fallen more than what just what it should if there was a role change and teammate change and opponent change and no other factors.

3.) It depends on what you value in the eye test. Each individual has a different eye test, as we all value different things. If you go by old school factors, clear the crease, tough in the corners, big slap shot. Weber is great at those, so some will say he has a great eye test. If you want a little more than that (and I do) and factor in skating and stickhandling and passing... well then, his eye test is still very good, but you see the reasons for the drop off.

4.) That the declining number is solely based on external factors and no decline on Weber's part is just not supported when running all the numbers.

I appreciate the discussion as well, and don't sell yourself short on the intelligence side. I also appreciate that we can disagree without attacking.

1. Well in regards to the posters research we are discussing it seems like it does account for the drop off.

2. Disagree with this as well I think the dramatic way he was switched from a heavy offensive role the first four years to a solely defensive one and I'm talking all the hard minutes the other guys don't even come close which was a point the poster raised that maybe some of the other D men on Nashville have better corsi because Weber was shouldering all the tough minutes.

3. Personally I think he does a lot more than that and I think he has a great first pass and which was pointed out before in the article Weber had great Corsi in this regards for the first four years in Nashville.

I do agree that we can have a rational discussion without attacking one another, its one of the reason I have always liked this forum was the respective way you can have a discussion. Anyway tis getting a bit late by me, we will have to continue this another day.

Night

Edited by Scott462
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Well in regards to the posters research we are discussing it seems like it does account for the drop off.

2. Disagree with this as well I think the dramatic way he was switched from a heavy offensive role the first four years to a solely defensive one and I'm talking all the hard minutes the other guys don't even come close which was a point the poster raised that maybe some of the other D men on Nashville have better corsi because Weber was shouldering all the tough minutes.

3. Personally I think he does a lot more than that and I think he has a great first pass and which was pointed out before in the article Weber had great Corsi in this regards for the first four years in Nashville.

I do agree that we can have a rational discussion without attacking one another, its one of the reason I have always liked this forum was the respective way you can have a discussion. Anyway tis getting a bit late by me, we will have to continue this another day.

Night

The original post doesn't explain it, because the poster only identified reasons why there would be a drop off, he didn't indicate how much of a drop off each of these reasons would create... (or a range of it).... others did that math. No one is denying that playing more dzone starts creates some effect on relative corsi. I am just saying the effect isn't as pronounced as the poster says, and i had the numbers to show it.

Good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"..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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"..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.

The solid play on the ice IN THE REGULAR SEASON... is a predictor of playoff success.

Even the LA Kings team that was an 8th seed in the playoffs, the worst playoff team in the Western Conference.... corsi scores predicted that they had a 70% chance of winning each round as they were the better team in puck possession in the regular season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think we can all agree that Weber stats have shown decline. That is a no brainer. I am hopeful that a change of scenery and a new partner on the line help him turn that around and he has 2 career seasons ahead of him. Then we can move him while he still has value and not be stuck with the back end of his contract. Right now it is all just speculation. Nobody has any idea how he will do when paired with Beaulieu.

I believe his corsi will be a little different next years as will PKs. They are both headed to different situations. different systems. Shea will see his PP numbers blow up this year. Why? Capt Kirk is running the PP and I don't think DD will be on it. He never had that before and still had good PP numbers. PK will be rushing more and therefore scoring more but also being caught up ice more often. No MT holding him back. His game and corsi will also change. My point being, you can't assume a player will be the same corsi when he is on a new team, therefore I don't need to hear about it. It has no bearing on the future what so ever. It is like saying Glen Anderson was an elite goal scorer because he happened to play with Gretzky. He wasn't as was proven in Toronto, but his corsi rating in Edmonton was through the roof. You can use these stats to say how a player will probably perform given the same team, but corsi has no relevence IMO once a player has changed teams.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original post doesn't explain it, because the poster only identified reasons why there would be a drop off, he didn't indicate how much of a drop off each of these reasons would create... (or a range of it).... others did that math. No one is denying that playing more dzone starts creates some effect on relative corsi. I am just saying the effect isn't as pronounced as the poster says, and i had the numbers to show it.

Good night.

It wasn't just D zone starts it was a combination of: Quality of teammates, Quality of competition and % of D zone starts used together in context that he used to come to his conclusions. He compared past years where Weber had great Corsi and the last four years where he did not and ran a correlation using these stats to shed a little more light on the Weber corsi situation.

"Given PK put up his highest Relative Corsi numbers the season he played with the strongest Teammates and given how much Weber’s Relative Corsi numbers plummeted over the last four seasons where he played with terrible teammates (and put up his worst Relative Corsi numbers the season he played with the worst teammates), I wondered about the relationship between the two variables. So I just ran correlations for the two variables for all players for each of the last two seasons and, sure enough, I found some reasonably strong correlations (r’s of .45 or so). So quality of teammates seems pretty important for driving Relative Corsi! That’s interesting because some suggest this statistic isolates the extent to which a player individually drives possession. Many have lamented this interpretation, however (see link below for thoughts). I can see why – teammates matter!"

http://drivingplay.blogspot.ca/2011/09/on-problem-with-corsi-rel.html

I agree that stats are not the be all end all and that they should be used more often as just a tool not a measuring stick of how one player is better than another, that's not really what I am attempting to do. I am just trying to put the numbers in perspective for the crowd ready to take Weber out to the shed and old yeller his ass before he has even stepped foot on the ice in Montreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well me and commandant are going back and forth about it and I think I got the jist of the post but honestly I would implore you to give her a read it really is quite insightful.

What illWill said. I simply don't know nor care enough so am gonna put head back in the sand now and wait for something else of interest to be brought up...so don't mind me.

But, must say, one of you must have longest post of year for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...