[brooks] Even with Retention, "No Interest" in Shattenkirk or Smith on Trade Market

No, I say it's hyperbole because the math doesn't support your description. If he were as bad as you characterize, his numbers would look significantly worse.

No. You say it's hyperbole any time someone disagrees with you. It's hyperbole to say that Shatty's numbers are good especially when other evidence (i.e. no trade market) suggests otherwise.

Then don't compare him to someone who is used in a completely different role. You were the one who brought up both Claesson and Pionk, not me.

I only brought up Pionk because he's the same style of player and you cried about Claesson. Claesson's deployment (third pair, 54.7% OZS), was basically the same as Shattenkirk's (third pair, 56.6% OZS).

No. You say it's hyperbole any time someone disagrees with you.

No, I say it's hyperbole when you're hyperbolic. You know, like comparing him to Neal Pionk or Fredrik Claesson.

It's hyperbole to say that Shatty's numbers are good especially when other evidence (i.e. no trade market) suggests otherwise.

Other evidence? You have one report from a writer with an up-and-down track record. If that's evidence, it's laced with anecdotes.

I only brought up Pionk because he's the same style of player and you cried about Claesson. Claesson's deployment (third pair, 54.7% OZS), was basically the same as Shattenkirk's (third pair, 56.6% OZS).

Yet Pionk's numbers are in the toilet by comparison and Claesson isn't even in the same stratosphere. And you wonder why I call this a narrative? You're argument is standing on exactly two pillars: ZS% and a Brooks report. Math be damned.

No, I say it's hyperbole when you're hyperbolic. You know, like comparing him to Neal Pionk or Fredrik Claesson.

 

 

 

Other evidence? You have one report from a writer with an up-and-down track record. If that's evidence, it's laced with anecdotes.

 

 

 

Yet Pionk's numbers are in the toilet by comparison and Claesson isn't even in the same stratosphere. And you wonder why I call this a narrative? You're argument is standing on exactly two pillars: ZS% and a Brooks report. Math be damned.

You think that's hyperbolic because you disagree. This is my point. I think Pionk and Shatty are basically the exact same player. I think Claesson is better. It's not hyperbole.

The evidence is in the fact that....he hasn't been traded. I've been saying that there's no market for Shatty for the better part of a year, I don't care what Brooks says. You're only pillar is Corsi lol.

Deployment...I don't care about Pionk's Corsi relative to Shatty's. It's not apples to apples.

You're making an argument, right now, that anything not on hockey-reference is hyperbole. I don't know how anyone can watch Shatty play and think, "yea, his numbers would be really good getting a heavy defensive workload against top lines." It's obvious that they would be horrible.

Cool, so we've resorted to telling the other person what their argument is, rather than actually listening.

I'm pretty sure this is going nowhere, so I'll bow out now.

Cool, so we've resorted to telling the other person what their argument is, rather than actually listening.

eyeroll. This is the same as your point about hyperbole. I don't agree, so I'm not listening lol

You told me that I'm speaking in hyperbole and creating a narrative and blah blah, I wasn't. It's not hyperbole to say that the math you've pointed out is completely misrepresenting who Shatty is as a player.

eyeroll. This is the same as your point about hyperbole. I don't agree, so I'm not listening lol

 

You told me that I'm speaking in hyperbole and creating a narrative and blah blah, I wasn't. It's not hyperbole to say that the math you've pointed out is completely misrepresenting who Shatty is as a player.

Isn't it? Rely harder on zone start percentages. Go for it.

Whether you like it or not, Shattenkirk was the Rangers best 5v5 defenseman last season. Quite comfortably so, iirc. Phil can probably post the relevant analytics.

I still believe they'll be able to trade him with retention, if there's no takers that would be very strange.

Isn't it? Rely harder on zone start percentages. Go for it.

I'm not. I only reference that because it is the tangible representation of his deployment.

You refuse to think about him outside of his analytics - which are grossly misrepresentative of his play because of deployment. As such, you call any other interpretation of his play as hyperbole, building a narrative, not listening, etc. etc. There's no metrics for lost board battles, bad pinches or fumbled pucks, or I'd use them before I ever would ZS%

I'm not. I only reference that because it is the tangible representation of his deployment.

 

You refuse to think about him outside of his analytics - which are grossly misrepresentative of his play because of deployment. As such, you call any other interpretation of his play as hyperbole, building a narrative, not listening, etc. etc. There's no metrics for lost board battles, bad pinches or fumbled pucks, or I'd use them before I ever would ZS%

No, Mike, I call your descriptions of it hyperbolic, and your comparisons to Pionk and Claesson — markedly worse defenders with statistical track records (analytic or otherwise) that pale in comparison — narrative.

There actually are metrics for those things, too. They're called turnovers, giveaways, missed shots, etc.

Missed shots leader last season? Pionk. Shattenkirk was second.

Missed shots per game played? Claesson. Shattenkirk was fourth.

Giveaways? DeAngelo. Shattenkirk was fifth.

Takeaways? Shattenkirk was first.

No, Mike, I call your descriptions of it hyperbolic, and your comparisons to Pionk and Claesson — markedly worse defenders with statistical track records (analytic or otherwise) that pale in comparison — narrative.

 

There actually are metrics for those things, too. They're called turnovers, giveaways, missed shots, etc.

 

Missed shots leader last season? Pionk. Shattenkirk was second.

Missed shots per game played? Claesson. Shattenkirk was fourth.

Giveaways? DeAngelo. Shattenkirk was fifth.

Takeaways? Shattenkirk was first.

You say mine are because you disagree, that's the point. Hyperbole is exaggeration, I'm not exaggerating, I just don't give a fuck about Shatty's shot share when he's lining up against bottom 6ers every night and think he's a bad player. Imagine how irritated you'd be if I said something along the lines of "You and Banter are simply trying to craft the narrative of Shatty (and Clendening before him) as a quality player because it legitimizes your trust for spreadsheets." That's the exact same logic you're using. I could easily say "It's hyperbole to just look at the stats and say that Shatty is worth is contract" too.

And just in general, I think the "pale in comparison" thing is overblown, and is heavily influenced by DZS. One faceoff loss in the DZ could result in, very quickly, a blocked point shot, a point shot that gets through, and a rebound, when the defenseman has absolutely no opportunity to get the puck. I mean, that's 4 shot attempts that happens all the time, especially against team's top lines. On a team as bad as the Rangers were last year, that kills defensemen. It happened over and over again in the Carolina game last October. Are we going to try to create some world where Shatty is better than Mac, because he was always a negative Corsi player during his time.

Also, a few things.

- Shatty had 1 more takeaway and 5 more giveaways than Pionk. Given the subjective nature of those stats (not to mention quality of deployment), that's the same.

- Shatty's giveaways per game (.75) was effectively the same as Claesson's (.84). For those keeping track at home, that is 1 turnover every 10 games. For a guy who has 1 talent - passing the puck - this is a huge loss.

- I don't think shot accuracy is worth ever knowing, but his thru% was worse thank Pionk and ADA, if we're playing that game. Of course it's better than Claesson's.

- Again, deployment. A guy getting a heavy offensive deployment against weaker competition, who is a puck mover by nature, should be miles ahead in terms of turnovers. \

But regardless, none of these are metrics for what I said. There are no metrics for bad pinches, bobbled pucks, or getting ragdolled along the boards. All 3 of those are far more influential than subjective Giveaway/Takeaway numbers and we would have very different interpretations of defensemen if they did. You can bet your bippy that coaches and teams are tracking those things, but it takes hours of film work that are basically impossible to do outside of being a full-time coach/assistant.

"Man, ass cancer is so much better than dick cancer."

"No, dick cancer is better than ass cancer."

"You know what's better? AIDS."

You say mine are because you disagree, that's the point. Hyperbole is exaggeration, I'm not exaggerating, I just don't give a fuck about Shatty's shot share when he's lining up against bottom 6ers every night and think he's a bad player. Imagine how irritated you'd be if I said something along the lines of "You and Banter are simply trying to craft the narrative of Shatty (and Clendening before him) as a quality player because it legitimizes your trust for spreadsheets." That's the exact same logic you're using. I could easily say "It's hyperbole to just look at the stats and say that Shatty is worth is contract" too.

No, I say they are because they are. Compare him to his actual peers and we wouldn't be disagreeing like this. If you wanted to call him a low rent Tyson Barrie, or a balding Tyler Myers, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, you started at a disingenuous position (hence the hyperbole) of pitting him against measurably inferior players. Considering you've been dead set against Shattenkirk for a year plus before he even signed, is it any wonder I bristled at it? Both comparisons were designed, by my interpretation, to be cheap shots — measures to cut off honest argument by simply throwing him in with players not worth arguing about.

Also, Shattenkirk isn't worth the contract, especially if he isn't getting the first PPQB job where he dines out (more than 50% of his career totals are on the man advantage). Hence why I've offered him, numerous times, at 50% retention in trade proposals. But you see me write "corsi," and you see red.

And just in general, I think the "pale in comparison" thing is overblown, and is heavily influenced by DZS. One faceoff loss in the DZ could result in, very quickly, a blocked point shot, a point shot that gets through, and a rebound, when the defenseman has absolutely no opportunity to get the puck. I mean, that's 4 shot attempts that happens all the time, especially against team's top lines. On a team as bad as the Rangers were last year, that kills defensemen. It happened over and over again in the Carolina game last October. Are we going to try to create some world where Shatty is better than Mac, because he was always a negative Corsi player during his time.

I don't disagree, which is why — get this — I don't actually use a single statistic to make an argument.

Also, a few things.

 

- Shatty had 1 more takeaway and 5 more giveaways than Pionk. Given the subjective nature of those stats (not to mention quality of deployment), that's the same.

- Shatty's giveaways per game (.75) was effectively the same as Claesson's (.84). For those keeping track at home, that is 1 turnover every 10 games. For a guy who has 1 talent - passing the puck - this is a huge loss.

- I don't think shot accuracy is worth ever knowing, but his thru% was worse thank Pionk and ADA, if we're playing that game. Of course it's better than Claesson's.

- Again, deployment. A guy getting a heavy offensive deployment against weaker competition, who is a puck mover by nature, should be miles ahead in terms of turnovers. \

 

But regardless, none of these are metrics for what I said. There are no metrics for bad pinches, bobbled pucks, or getting ragdolled along the boards. All 3 of those are far more influential than subjective Giveaway/Takeaway numbers and we would have very different interpretations of defensemen if they did. You can bet your bippy that coaches and teams are tracking those things, but it takes hours of film work that are basically impossible to do outside of being a full-time coach/assistant.

Again, no real disagreement. Wrong side of 30, two bad knees, no speed in a game built for it. Which is why I'm in favor of trading him.

No, I say they are because they are. Compare him to his actual peers and we wouldn't be disagreeing like this. If you wanted to call him a low rent Tyson Barrie, or a balding Tyler Myers, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, you started at a disingenuous position (hence the hyperbole) of pitting him against measurably inferior players. Considering you've been dead set against Shattenkirk for a year plus before he even signed, is it any wonder I bristled at it? Both comparisons were designed, by my interpretation, to be cheap shots — measures to cut off honest argument by simply throwing him in with players not worth arguing about.

 

Also, Shattenkirk isn't worth the contract, especially if he isn't getting the first PPQB job where he dines out (more than 50% of his career totals are on the man advantage). Hence why I've offered him, numerous times, at 50% retention in trade proposals. But you see me write "corsi," and you see red.

 

I don't disagree, which is why — get this — I don't actually use a single statistic to make an argument.

 

 

Again, no real disagreement. Wrong side of 30, two bad knees, no speed in a game built for it. Which is why I'm in favor of trading him.

Low rent Tyson Barrie is...Neal Pionk. Neal Pionk is Shatty's peer because of play style, Claesson is as a fringe 6/7. They were all on the same team last year. How are they not peers?

You're forgetting that this isn't a point about whether or not he should be traded, it's whether there is a market for him. You said it's "insane" that there isn't, and that's exclusively based on his shot share and, yes, that is a single statistic. You can package it 5 different ways - Corsi, Fenwick, xGF - but its all the same thing. I think that argument is weak, but I haven't exaggerated a single thing, you just don't like it.

Low rent Tyson Barrie is...Neal Pionk. Neal Pionk is Shatty's peer because of play style, Claesson is as a fringe 6/7. They were all on the same team last year. How are they not peers?

 

You're forgetting that this isn't a point about whether or not he should be traded, it's whether there is a market for him. You said it's "insane" that there isn't, and that's exclusively based on his shot share and, yes, that is a single statistic. You can package it 5 different ways - Corsi, Fenwick, xGF - but its all the same thing. I think that argument is weak, but I haven't exaggerated a single thing, you just don't like it.

Yet you curtailed both comparisons when pressed on it earlier. If they're such comparables, why cave?

Career performance is how. Claesson is a fringe 6/7, Shattenkirk has for the life of his career been a middle-six at ES and a top PPQB. Pionk showed a brief ability, bumping Shattenkirk off his post for a month this season, before collapsing back to earth.

And yes, considering a team just signed Tyler Myers for six years, and the Leafs traded for Barrie at 50%, and a slew of others were all moved, it's perplexing to me that Shattenkirk didn't have similar value anywhere.

"Man, ass cancer is so much better than dick cancer."

 

"No, dick cancer is better than ass cancer."

 

"You know what's better? AIDS."

I lol'd.

Yet you curtailed both comparisons when pressed on it earlier. If they're such comparables, why cave?

 

Career performance is how. Claesson is a fringe 6/7, Shattenkirk has for the life of his career been a middle-six at ES and a top PPQB. Pionk showed a brief ability, bumping Shattenkirk off his post for a month this season, before collapsing back to earth.

 

And yes, considering a team just signed Tyler Myers for six years, and the Leafs traded for Barrie at 50%, and a slew of others were all moved, it's perplexing to me that Shattenkirk didn't have similar value anywhere.

Because deployment, for the 500th time. Shot share is one stat and it's so widely influenced by deployment - not just OZS - that's its largely meaningless. Their playing styles are exactly the same, and if they swapped, we'd be having the opposite conversation. I'm not caving on anything.

Nobody cares what Shattenkirk did in 2015, but this is misleading anyways. He has been sheltered his entire career and no longer has the legs to be as productive. I mean, your argument for trading him is that he can't compete in the faster game...but also can't believe there's a market for him? That's a serious contradiction, especially at a $3m price tag. And again, that 3rd pair, PPQB player is only appealing to a playoff team who needs one of those. There aren't 5 of them in the league.

Those players are useful...Myers didn't require assets, and had more points than Shattenkirk last year lol, and Barrie is on an expiring contract. You said it was "insane," not perplexing, why cave?

Because deployment, for the 500th time. Shot share is one stat and it's so widely influenced by deployment - not just OZS - that's its largely meaningless. Their playing styles are exactly the same, and if they swapped, we'd be having the opposite conversation. I'm not caving on anything.

 

Nobody cares what Shattenkirk did in 2015, but this is misleading anyways. He has been sheltered his entire career and no longer has the legs to be as productive. I mean, your argument for trading him is that he can't compete in the faster game...but also can't believe there's a market for him? That's a serious contradiction, especially at a $3m price tag. And again, that 3rd pair, PPQB player is only appealing to a playoff team who needs one of those. There aren't 5 of them in the league.

 

Those players are useful...Myers didn't require assets, and had more points than Shattenkirk last year lol, and Barrie is on an expiring contract. You said it was "insane," not perplexing, why cave?

You're still not understanding the context of my point. It had everything to do with the moment in time. A slew of RHD just moved, and many were signed to regrettable deals in UFA. Sure, on the latter, you can argue you didn't have to give up any assets for them, so in a sense, there's less "risk," but for some teams, a 50% retained Shattenkirk for two years would have been of far better value. For the same reasons the Leafs dealt for Barrie retained, for example. They actually want the shorter term and the flexibility to walk away when the player will get significantly worse.

My argument for trading him was specific to teams who could play him in a role in which he was "sheltered" at even strength (allowed to play on the second or third pairing) and still see a comfortable power play presence. That market just dried up as each new move was announced. At this point, my guess is that the Rangers simply hold on to him (they have no other choice), and either trade him (retained) after this season for his final year (think Barrie), or buy him out next summer.

You're still not understanding the context of my point. It had everything to do with the moment in time. A slew of RHD just moved, and many were signed to regrettable deals in UFA. Sure, on the latter, you can argue you didn't have to give up any assets for them, so in a sense, there's less "risk," but for some teams, a 50% retained Shattenkirk for two years would have been of far better value. For the same reasons the Leafs dealt for Barrie retained, for example. They actually want the shorter term and the flexibility to walk away when the player will get significantly worse.

 

My argument for trading him was specific to teams who could play him in a role in which he was "sheltered" at even strength (allowed to play on the second or third pairing) and still see a comfortable power play presence. That market just dried up as each new move was announced. At this point, my guess is that the Rangers simply hold on to him (they have no other choice), and either trade him (retained) after this season for his final year (think Barrie), or buy him out next summer.

No I get the context. I don't agree. Those players are all much, much better than Shattenkirk. Braun, Niskanen...you name it. None of those moves impacted the Shattenkirk market, because it never existed for him.

I said it before and I?ll say it again Shattys actual salary is for 6.65 mil this year and 4 mil.( of which 2 mil. is a July 01 signing bonus)next year. So after next July 01 Shatty will have one year and 2 mil. Who wouldn?t deal for Shatty at 1 yr and 2 mil. Cap hit doesn?t effect teams that never spend their full cap.

Smith is the guy to trade now, and with salary retention because no one wants him at his salary?- actual salary calls for 4.525 and 3.35( 1 mil. Signing bonus). His cap hit is 4.35 mil. His actual as opposed to his cap hit is not much of a difference as opposed to Shatty who got most of his money in the first two year of his contract.

Sent from my iPad using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

people miss the point of shattenkirk when they focus on his play in the defensive zone - his whole career that has been a liability. at his peak he was a force on the power play and creating scoring plays in the offensive zone. as his productivity in the offensive zone has dropped off, his deficiencies in the d zone become more glaring. put him with a free wheeling attacking team and he can still create. but don’t expect him to lock down an opposing team’s forward, he has never been about that.

A lot of rangers fans never saw him play other than highlights. They’re still expecting him to return to their inaccurate expectations of play

I said it before and I?ll say it again Shattys actual salary is for 6.65 mil this year and 4 mil.( of which 2 mil. is a July 01 signing bonus)next year. So after next July 01 Shatty will have one year and 2 mil. Who wouldn?t deal for Shatty at 1 yr and 2 mil. Cap hit doesn?t effect teams that never spend their full cap.

 

Smith is the guy to trade now, and with salary retention because no one wants him at his salary?- actual salary calls for 4.525 and 3.35( 1 mil. Signing bonus). His cap hit is 4.35 mil. His actual as opposed to his cap hit is not much of a difference as opposed to Shatty who got most of his money in the first two year of his contract.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

This, for sure.

I think I throw one of our D prospects (Lindgren, perhaps) off the mountain of Vormir and into the Ottawa Senators (or something) to get rid of Smith right now, and work a Shattenkirk deal come 7/2/20

A lot of rangers fans never saw him play other than highlights. They’re still expecting him to return to their inaccurate expectations of play

Isn’t that how most players from other teams are judged by a lot fans. Highlights and numbers.