Join the queue for today’s PHR Live Chat with Josh Erickson. The session is now underway, and questions are answered in the order they’re submitted. Use this link to join the session.
at CDT | by Josh Erickson 11 Comments
Join the queue for today’s PHR Live Chat with Josh Erickson. The session is now underway, and questions are answered in the order they’re submitted. Use this link to join the session.
So – Pitt has accumulated like 30 picks in next 3 drafts. But 19 year olds don’t help make them competitive in Sid’s window. What are they doing? trading picks with Karlson contract? Doing the STL play on Broberg/ Holloway and getting RFAs?
I can take a crack at this
yes and yes
they likely know they need to either attach a pick to Karlsson or take back a bad contract. main issue will be his no move and likely finding a team with playoff hopes he is comfortable going to. I wonder if you could see a zegras/Karlsson type swap as the Ducks need an offensive D.
and they are certainly a candidate for an offer sheet with that collection of picks, but would need to clear up the Karlsson situation first.
They need to retain on and attach a pick to rid themselves of that Karlsson contract.
Then they need a way out of the Jarry, Rust, and Rakell contracts.
Maybe then they can start to build a team that may compete during Crosby’s twilight years.
I think they can only offer sheet with their own picks so can’t go wholesale and make 5 offers at once with other accumulated picks
For the offersheet, this is correct DevilShark. But the Pens could use the other picks/prospects to entice the other team not to match. For example, the Blues sent the Oilers a prospect to not match one of Broberg/Holloway sheets. It also offers them material to make trades that don’t include their own picks in the next coming seasons to improve their team.
If they’re able to get out of a negative deal this offseason that doesn’t include one of their picks, but one from a club they have already acquired from, they can use it as incentive instead of one of theirs so they can have offersheet material in the 26 offseason.
Interesting. Quite crafty. Seems like an expensive route but would be several years faster so I can see the payoff
@devilshark is correct. A team must only use their own picks for offer sheets, so loading up on 1sts means zero for offer sheets
This is correct. But a team could use theirs and another’s to acquire the rights to another player or the rights to a pick they had previously traded to be able to make that offersheet opportunity open again. It’s rare, but its not like it’s never happened.
“they’re creating a lot of chances now that have historically been undervalued or hard to capture by xG models”
Josh, can you expand a bit more on this? What kinds of chances are you referring to and how/why are the Leafs creating them now as opposed to before? Trying my best to understand the new hockey metrics. Thanks.
Of course. I’m by no means a complete expert, but I can confidently say this: Expected goals models are valuable, but they lack context. In general, xG models only spit out one number: the percentage chance of a shot going in the net, assuming average shooting and average goaltending, from where it was taken on the ice. That means things like goalie screens and the quality of the pass leading up to the shot aren’t taken into account. Some xG models (like MoneyPuck’s) have been able to at least take things like rebound chances into account and become more accurate that way.
Historically, that’s why looking at pure quantity of shot attempts (Corsi) has been a better predictor of playoff success than quality of shot attempts (xG) because xG is prone to undervaluing what we’d call “playoff-style” goals (shots through screens, etc.)
Fantastic response, thanks! I didn’t realize xG models (aside from MoneyPuck) had so few variables.
I’ve been listening to Steve Valiquette’s appearances on the Kyper and Bourne show this season and am fascinated by the proprietary goaltending metrics his company has. It’s really opened my eyes to which shot types are dangerous and which ones aren’t. For example, I think he said that double layer screen shots have a similar chance of being a goal as shots on breakaways. Which sounds nuts, but as fans our own beliefs need to be challenged from time to time haha.
Anyway I appreciate how much you include advanced metrics in your work here. Wish mainstream media had a better handle on this stuff!