• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

The MotherFucking Off-Season Thread

BeLeafer said:
Obvioiusly, but please explain how you account for the impact of qoc. You typically make strong claims about its impact. Is a 4.6 difference insignificant to you?
Click to expand...

there's a hint of it in the fact that puckIQ divvies it up into Elite/Middle/Grit - because it's not linear, and seems to have a greater effect the further away from the middle you get. The vast Middle there they can't find much correlation with - but at the extremes it becomes clear that there's an effect. And even if it was linear, it's an entirely different type of number than xgfrel so calculating them as direct tradeoffs doesn't make sense.

as for how do i do it? it's very hard. There is no good number for it. I have a decent feel for the impact simply by following the numbers unhealthily obsessively and regularly for a good number of years now. I wish Dom would publicize his numbers because I appreciate his work so much simply because his outputs pass my smell test of how QOC impacts the numbers, for the most part. He's the first one of all those guys whose numbers consistently applied qoc similarly to my amateur eyeballing of the stats.

but you seem to try and play both sides of the argument in your consistent attempts to gotcha me on QOC. if you think QOC is a negligible factor that's fine. Then Kerfoot is at+2.82rel and Haula at -2.80rel over the last 2yrs and we can just ignore QOC. but don't try to then gotcha me with QOC you don't believe in and say those QOC numbers there just balance that xgfrel difference out.
 
And now for another edition of “Who Said That?”:

“The obvious answer would Phil Kessel because of the 18-wheeler, right? At Christmastime that year we were confident that (first-rounder) would be like the 10th or 12th pick overall. We were five or six games over .500. Then we had that dreadful stretch where we lost 11 out of 13 games and just plummeted — and it ended up being Tyler Seguin. We talked about it before the trade. Because no one lottery-protected picks back then. So, when (our front office) met, we said, “Is there any way this team is going to pick somewhere 10th or lower?” And we were all like, “No, we’re good. We’re good.” Then we collapsed. Turned into Tyler Seguin and Dougie Hamilton.”
 
LeafOfFaith said:
And now for another edition of “Who Said That?”:

“The obvious answer would Phil Kessel because of the 18-wheeler, right? At Christmastime that year we were confident that (first-rounder) would be like the 10th or 12th pick overall. We were five or six games over .500. Then we had that dreadful stretch where we lost 11 out of 13 games and just plummeted — and it ended up being Tyler Seguin. We talked about it before the trade. Because no one lottery-protected picks back then. So, when (our front office) met, we said, “Is there any way this team is going to pick somewhere 10th or lower?” And we were all like, “No, we’re good. We’re good.” Then we collapsed. Turned into Tyler Seguin and Dougie Hamilton.”
Click to expand...

"Nobody lottery protected picks back then"

Now there's a bunch of revisionist horseshit. It definitely did happen pretty regularly still back then. And was it you who met Burke at the draft not long after and specifically asked him about lottery protecting the picks?
 
Yup, I met him when they did the draft in LA, chatting it up outside a luncheon the day before, and I asked him point blank and he said "yeah, I could've lottery protected it". And then he looked at me in this way that was almost as if to say, "so what?"

To be fair, the quote isn't inconsistent with what he said that day. The quote doesn't say that he couldn't have protected it, just that it wasn't a thing to lottery protect picks back then.
 
zeke said:
there's a hint of it in the fact that puckIQ divvies it up into Elite/Middle/Grit - because it's not linear, and seems to have a greater effect the further away from the middle you get. The vast Middle there they can't find much correlation with - but at the extremes it becomes clear that there's an effect. And even if it was linear, it's an entirely different type of number than xgfrel so calculating them as direct tradeoffs doesn't make sense.

as for how do i do it? it's very hard. There is no good number for it. I have a decent feel for the impact simply by following the numbers unhealthily obsessively and regularly for a good number of years now. I wish Dom would publicize his numbers because I appreciate his work so much simply because his outputs pass my smell test of how QOC impacts the numbers, for the most part. He's the first one of all those guys whose numbers consistently applied qoc similarly to my amateur eyeballing of the stats.

but you seem to try and play both sides of the argument in your consistent attempts to gotcha me on QOC. if you think QOC is a negligible factor that's fine. Then Kerfoot is at+2.82rel and Haula at -2.80rel over the last 2yrs and we can just ignore QOC. but don't try to then gotcha me with QOC you don't believe in and say those QOC numbers there just balance that xgfrel difference out.
Click to expand...
Not out to get you, zeke. I'm trying to understand how it is that you do not see qoc significant here. One looks to be right at the mid mark (Haula) and the other slightly below (Kerfoot). How to say whether that is significant or not, I have no idea.

The main thing, however, is interpreting the difference in relative xgf%. The example I posted shows a single player with a much wider variation than that between Haula and Kerfoot (which you describe as "pretty extreme" -- Kerfoot "dominating" and Haula getting "crushed"). If it can vary that much for one player over various seasons, how is the difference between Kerfoot and Haula extreme?

Looking at the Leafs last year, there was a variance between worst (Gauthier) and best (Matthews) of -9.01 to +5.93. Actually, I just noticed that you were using all strengths. 5v5 sva Kerfoot is just +1.07.

Edit: looked up Haula and his 5v5 sva is quite bad: -7.61. I can't find the -2.80 number though.
 
Last edited:
CF is interesting. Do they get info of every little roster shuffle from the league?

First Engvall gets buried, not sure why.

Now I see Rosen has been dropped off the roster annnnnnd Lehtonen added instead. Lilly also dropped down. So the D looks exactly what I expect to start the season. The first six guys listed plus Sandin as the extra, and Dermott likely traded.

If you can be over the cap during the offseason, what’s the point of these moves? Is there any impact on the cap during the season to do these things now?
 
LeafOfFaith said:
CF is interesting. Do they get info of every little roster shuffle from the league?

First Engvall gets buried, not sure why.

Now I see Rosen has been dropped off the roster annnnnnd Lehtonen added instead. Lilly also dropped down. So the D looks exactly what I expect to start the season. The first six guys listed plus Sandin as the extra, and Dermott likely traded.

If you can be over the cap during the offseason, what’s the point of these moves? Is there any impact on the cap during the season to do these things now?
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that none of these are moves the Leafs have actually made. There is no active roster in the off-season. Once the regular season is starting and teams have to set their 23-man rosters, CapFriendly does stay pretty up to date with team rosters.

Until then though, all that shuffling around is just someone who works at CapFriendly making their best guess as to how the Leafs would manage their cap with the roster as it's currently set up.

The players on that roster are also just listed by cap hit, from high to low. So Sandin & Dermott being listed 7th & 8th among Leaf defensemen is entirely because Sandin has the 7th highest cap hit on that list, and Dermott is 8th by virtue of the fact that he doesn't have a cap hit right now.
 
Oh I know about how and why they're listed in that order and all that.

The thing I don't know is who decides on these daily roster changes on CF. Whether there's some central NHL source that it consults and then adjusts accordingly, or if it's something else. I'm surprised to hear that it's just some guy moving players around on his own accord. I also don't get why, since you can be over the cap. So like why is he burying Engvall when he could just have him listed on the main roster?
 
They can't have more than 23 guys on the roster.

Engvall likely got moved by because he doesn't need to clear waivers.
 
That's enforced during the offseason?

Even so, I would think then that the Leafs have to make that move, not some CF guy speculating that that's the move they made?
 
Engvall probably doesn't make the roster at this point, right?

He's waiver-exempt (until he plays 15 more games), and you clear $375K above an NHL minimum salary by demoting him. So if he's not in your starting 12, it doesn't make any sense to keep him on the roster. What you probably do is keep a member of the $700K club as your 13th forward. So, Boyd, Malgin, Brooks or maybe Anderson, depending what they re-sign him for.

And I don't think he's in the starting 12:

Zach Hyman - Auston Matthews - William Nylander
Ilya Mikheyev - John Tavares - Mitch Marner
Jimmy Vesey - Alex Kerfoot - Wayne Simmonds
Nick Robertson - Joe Thornton - Jason Spezza
 
leafman101 said:
They have a ton of options and depth with this lineup. They are 14-15 deep at forward in players with NHL experience and none of those guys are shitty, no talent 4th liners taht can't play up the lineup like Goat or Clifford.
Click to expand...
Please pay your league entry fee and post your protected list for the hockey pls and thx
 
LeafOfFaith said:
That's enforced during the offseason?

Even so, I would think then that the Leafs have to make that move, not some CF guy speculating that that's the move they made?
Click to expand...
Enforced? What do you mean?


Capfriendly won't list more than 23 guys on the active roster because that's tbe roster limit.
 
I’m saying there’s an active roster in the offseason? And if there is, CF is just making its own best guesses rather than getting the info from an official source?
 
Yes they have to make guesses to keep it under a 23 man roster. Listing more than 23 would make all of their numbers nonsense. They're trying to be as accurate as they can.

 
In reality, the leafs will likely be carrying only 20-21 guys this year so you can feel free to demote another couple guys off the roster there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top