Speculation: Caps General Discussion (Coaching/FAs/Cap/Lines etc) - 2021-22 Season Part 7: Off-season Edition

[Carlzner]

It’s an absolute miracle this team won a Stanley Cup with rookie-level Carlson & Orlov as their 2 best defenseman!

 

[twabby]

I think I get it just fine.

The problem, again, is that this leaves a lot of good players “declining” as far as you see it with absolutely zero context to their peers. We’ve accepted for a very long time that a forward’s prime is somewhere between 23 and 27, earlier side for goal scorers and a little later for IQ players so it’s not unexpected to see WAR rise in the early 20’s because you’re either contributing and growing or not playing. Easy to understand, backed up by how there’s less data for younger players.

We also know that the average career length of an NHL player is about 4.5 years, because the turnover on bottom 6 players is always going to beat the ~25% who stay for 10+ years. So… the same borderline guys who are dragging the career average down are going to be the same guys who drag the WAR graph down, go figure, right around 4-5 years after they make it. How do you not already see the problem here? Those guys aren’t washing out with year to year WAR increases, are they? And there are more of them than there are All-Stars, so what does that do to an average?

The 25% with long careers aren’t going to be gaining WAR at a rate that will ever counterbalance the 75% that come and go. They themselves can experience zero loss and that’s going to flatten the line a little but it won’t raise it, and that’s stupid because that player can still be more productive than 90% of his peers. They could be putting up twice the WAR of any other player and it really won’t make an impact unless it’s changing, and even if they lose a tenth here or there it shouldn’t really matter if they’re still lapping the rest of the league.

So… yeah. It doesn’t matter on an individual predictive level at all unless you already have reason to believe a player fits one of the two categories, at which point the chart is only really useful if you think he’s a plug. The whole thing is built around the lowest common denominator, you might as well just be here saying the Caps should trade anyone in the 6th year of their career.

Bad players don’t (in general) follow a different trajectory than good players. It’s just that their initial starting points are so much lower than good players’ starting points. Because we’re dealing with year to year rate differentials and not cumulative WAR values, good players aren’t being dragged down by bad players.

For instance, if a good player at age 22 posts 0.10 WAR/60 and goes to 0.13 WAR/60 in his age 23 season, the age 22 to 23 average differential is not being dragged down by a bad player who goes from -0.10 WAR/60 at age 22 to -0.07 WAR/60 at age 23. Their WAR differentials are the same: +0.03.

 

[HTFN]

Bad players don’t (in general) follow a different trajectory than good players. It’s just that their initial starting points are so much lower than good players’ starting points. Because we’re dealing with year to year rate differentials and not cumulative WAR values, good players aren’t being dragged down by bad players.

For instance, if a good player at age 22 posts 0.10 WAR/60 and goes to 0.13 WAR/60 in his age 23 season, the age 22 to 23 average differential is not being dragged down by a bad player who goes from -0.10 WAR/60 at age 22 to -0.07 WAR/60 at age 23. Their WAR differentials are the same: +0.03.

Jesus, dude, I know that.

The point is that as far as I can tell, if there are more bad players than good ones the bad ones are going to make the line look like shit. It doesn't matter if a guy makes a +.1 leap from age 27 to 28 if 5 more predictable low-tier players lose .02 each, correct? Now we're back to looking at the average length of a career, which for bad players can be 2-5 years and good players 10-12+ pretty easily. I think it's pretty obvious there's more volatility in the bad players than the good, so even if a good player keeps their WAR completely stable for a decade he's not going to move that needle while the majority of his draft class retires as their play slips away. The representation for good players on this graph is only to minimize decline. That's about all they can do once the average start to lose ground.

If all that is true it's not a predictor of very much more than the average length of an NHL career and is only worth following if you believe the player you're developing is exactly that: average. You kind of said it yourself although I don't think you grasp why it matters: the more you add conditions the more you see things start to vary.

Statistics don't matter to the individual, and player development is almost entirely about the individual. A bunch of booty ass scrubs washing out at 26 doesn't change that some individuals grow different, take a while to "get it", maybe suddenly flourish. Granted, I don't think he's going to end up like Roman Josi any time soon but to eyeball it the way you have and decide that he (and everybody else) is just factory made and not subject to change is bananas.

And that's why we're having the "fully cooked" conversation about this guy who is rapidly approaching unrestricted fr- *checks notes* oh, no, just completed his rookie season. Hey, speaking of, was he below replacement level all season? Want to show a first half/second half sort of thing?

edit: so, so many mistakes and mashed sentences. I am... blitzed

 

[Carlzner]

This is just so absurd lol.

Player progression is normal in every single sport. It’s a basic, fundamental part of fitness & life itself. Is it just hockey that this bizarre theory applies to?

Imagine telling Boston Celtics fans that Tatum hasn’t progressed since his rookie year. Would LOVE to see the fancy stat analytical comparisons that Jimmy Butler would draw in after his first few seasons in the league.

 

[Devil Dancer]

It’s an absolute miracle this team won a Stanley Cup with rookie-level Carlson & Orlov as their 2 best defenseman!

Twabs would have shot Orlov into the sun long before 2018!

 

[twabby]

Jesus, dude, I know that.

The point is that as far as I can tell, if there are more bad players than good ones the bad ones are going to make the line look like shit. It doesn't matter if a guy makes a +.1 leap from age 27 to 28 if 5 more predictable low-tier players lose .02 each, correct? Now we're back to looking at the average length of a career, which for bad players can be 2-5 years and good players 10-12+ pretty easily. I think it's pretty obvious there's more volatility in the bad players than the good, so even if a good player keeps their WAR completely stable for a decade he's not going to move that needle while the majority of his draft class retires as their play slips away. The representation for good players on this graph is only to minimize decline. That's about all they can do once the average start to lose ground.

If all that is true it's not a predictor of very much more than the average length of an NHL career and is only worth following if you believe the player you're developing is exactly that: average. You kind of said it yourself although I don't think you grasp why it matters: the more you add conditions the more you see things start to vary.

Statistics don't matter to the individual, and player development is almost entirely about the individual. A bunch of booty ass scrubs washing out at 26 doesn't change that some individuals grow different, take a while to "get it", maybe suddenly flourish. Granted, I don't think he's going to end up like Roman Josi any time soon but to eyeball it the way you have and decide that he (and everybody else) is just factory made and not subject to change is bananas.

And that's why we're having the "fully cooked" conversation about this guy who is rapidly approaching unrestricted fr- *checks notes* oh, no, just completed his rookie season. Hey, speaking of, was he below replacement level all season? Want to show a first half/second half sort of thing?

edit: so, so many mistakes and mashed sentences. I am... blitzed

No, the bad ones are not going to affect the curve unless you can show bad players get worse at different rates than good players get worse.

I also disagree that there is more volatility in bad vs. good players in general. Good players have higher highs and higher lows, but there is still the same volatility from season to season, in general.

The statistics vs. individual argument is kind of silly. Yes, of course every individual is different and unique. But trends exist. You can make informed predictions about how players will perform based on how players before them have done in similar situations.

Unless you have specific knowledge that indicates Fehervary is going to improve more than other players in similar situations have done in the past, then it just seems like wishful thinking rather than an educated guess to believe he is going to take a big step forward next season.

 

[twabby]

Twabs would have shot Orlov into the sun long before 2018!

I am the OG Orlov fan. I’m pretty sure I was one of the first ones predicting his top pairing talent while everyone else here was laser focused on his “pizza deliveries”!

 

[HTFN]

No, the bad ones are not going to affect the curve unless you can show bad players get worse at different rates than good players get worse.

I also disagree that there is more volatility in bad vs. good players in general. Good players have higher highs and higher lows, but there is still the same volatility from season to season, in general.

The statistics vs. individual argument is kind of silly. Yes, of course every individual is different and unique. But trends exist. You can make informed predictions about how players will perform based on how players before them have done in similar situations.

Unless you have specific knowledge that indicates Fehervary is going to improve more than other players in similar situations have done in the past, then it just seems like wishful thinking rather than an educated guess to believe he is going to take a big step forward next season.

So even though ~25% of the league will be around for 10+ years and the other 75% will experience massive churn over 2-5 years, you're telling me there's nothing in those numbers that's going to maybe make it look like players peak by 23 and are done by 27? They don't even have to get bad at different rates, just different times and in greater numbers.

Honestly you telling me "no that's not possible" isn't really doing a lot for me here. Can you explain in any way why? I'm not even sure why I'm still willing to engage with you on your terms here at all considering how one-sided that always is as an exercise but you not even putting forth an effort is doing absolutely nothing. I think I'm tagging out on this one. You won't show me anything I want to see, won't explain to me what I'm not getting, and spent the other half of the time being condescending about something I already understood.

 

[HTFN]

You know what? I’m kind of glad I didn’t let you explain it after all.

Spoiler: image huge

Finally got to see their sample, so while it’s thankfully not weighted by plugs, it also doesn’t even sound like the person who did it is super convinced to me yet and there are a lot of conditions.

 

[HTFN]

Here’s some from part 2 that I’m pretty sure is just a smarter version of the problem I was having, suggesting the real peak is farther to the right:

Spoiler: I don't know why

And here’s the problem with creating a chimera player (besides Jason) and an explicit reminder that this is not expected growth:

Spoiler: they're all so big

Also worth noting: the individual graphs in part 1 suggest players retain their defensive impact for the majority of their career and crater offensively, which seems like the type of thing that bothers you less if you’re a Fehervary type and not, in fact, Erik Karlsson.

 

[AlexBrovechkin8]

Can free agency and the draft please get here already.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I am the OG Orlov fan. I’m pretty sure I was one of the first ones predicting his top pairing talent while everyone else here was laser focused on his “pizza deliveries”!

it’s a shame D never improve right?

 

[twabby]

I moved the discussion to the analytics thread, as I am sensing it is better to discuss it there.

All Purpose Analytics and Extended Stats Discussion

Please feel free to ignore that part of the post! There were other player cards posted! I'm free to not ignore it, too. Just as you are free to not post redundant argumentss that have been debunked already.

hfboards.mandatory.com

 

[um]

This is just so absurd lol.

Player progression is normal in every single sport. It’s a basic, fundamental part of fitness & life itself. Is it just hockey that this bizarre theory applies to?

Imagine telling Boston Celtics fans that Tatum hasn’t progressed since his rookie year. Would LOVE to see the fancy stat analytical comparisons that Jimmy Butler would draw in after his first few seasons in the league.

It is against the very understanding of life isn't it?

Nobody is their best in year 1, that doesn't make sense. Its an argument against experience even existing.

 

[Langway]

 

[John Price]

Hopefully they can get Forsythe out and put a dangerous PP mastermind in his stead

Coaching needs a shakeup, players need a shakeup

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

 

[Kalopsia]

Weird strategy. I don't think I've ever heard of an assistant coach being brought in before a head coach. I guess with Lambert staying in Long Island they're not potentially blocking Trotz from bringing his #2 with him, but still seems weird when you're chasing the top coach on the market to not let him choose his own staff.

 

[BiPolar Caps]

Just as long as Jeff Halpern or Spencer Carberry are available come this time next year.

Lavy's a good coach, but he's in the final year of his contract. He seems risk averse when it comes to playing the younger players and this was his issue in Nashville as well which led to Nashville trading Kevin Fiala.

 

[Raikkonen]

Fever is perfectly fine player to have.

But he's not Orlov or Carlson.

Some has too much time on their hands.