Brooks Watch Out for Recurring Mistakes

[BrooksBurner]

Quote

So there are going to be more first-rounders tossed around as activity accelerates. Teams that fancy themselves contenders will pay the price, and perhaps even less reluctantly in the current landscape under which there is no clear-cut favorite to win the title.

 

But here is the reality. Since the cap went into effect in 2005-06, four teams have won the Cup after trading away their first-rounders proximate to the deadline, but just two won after trading their first-rounder for a rental.

Mistakes repeated are lessons unlearned.

 

https://nypost.com/2024/02/03/sports/nhl-contenders-must-be-wary-of-reoccurring-mistake-at-trade-deadline/amp/

 

Edited February 4 by BrooksBurner

[jsm7302]

7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Mistakes repeated are lessons unlearned.

 

https://nypost.com/2024/02/03/sports/nhl-contenders-must-be-wary-of-reoccurring-mistake-at-trade-deadline/amp/

 

22% chance of it working.....

 

The odds aren't in favor obviously. I wouldn't trade the first unless it came with term on a longer term solution. This team has glaring holes in the top 9. They must be addressed before the post season. We all know this. We've seen great success with smaller swings. Let that be the lesson learned; enhance the lineup don't remake it in February.

[Pete]

26 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Mistakes repeated are lessons unlearned.

 

https://nypost.com/2024/02/03/sports/nhl-contenders-must-be-wary-of-reoccurring-mistake-at-trade-deadline/amp/

 

That's a really reductive way to look at it. You would have to know the teams and their situations.

 

Columbus was making their first playoff appearance in quite some time and they were about to lose Panarin and Bobrovsky, so they felt they owed it to their fans to solidify holes in their team at the deadline, so they traded for Duchene. You can agree with the logic or not, but there's a thought process there that makes sense. 

[Br4d]

I really don't want to spend future value unless the group appears worthy of the boost.  So far they don't seem like they have it.

[BrooksBurner]

16 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

22% chance of it working.....

 

The odds aren't in favor obviously. I wouldn't trade the first unless it came with term on a longer term solution. This team has glaring holes in the top 9. They must be addressed before the post season. We all know this. We've seen great success with smaller swings. Let that be the lesson learned; enhance the lineup don't remake it in February.

It’s 2 out of 18 Cup winners traded a 1st for a pure rental, which is 11%, and that’s a macro percentage. To get an individual team’s probability of winning, you’d have to count every trade involving a 1st for a pure rental at the deadline, and then do 2 winners divided by that number. It probably only boosts an individual’s team’s odds of winning by a small fractional percent.

[BrooksBurner]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's a really reductive way to look at it. You would have to know the teams and their situations.

 

Columbus was making their first playoff appearance in quite some time and they were about to lose Panarin and Bobrovsky, so they felt they owed it to their fans to solidify holes in their team at the deadline, so they traded for Duchene. You can agree with the logic or not, but there's a thought process there that makes sense. 

 

You’re pointing to an edge case in terms of situation, and it doesn’t change the fact that they still didn’t win, which is the point.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

You’re pointing to an edge case in terms of situation, and it doesn’t change the fact that they still didn’t win, which is the point.

I don't think it's an edge case, there are plenty of organizations who do that. Some of them just do it to get the playoff revenue. 

 

The point is, 31 teams don't win the Stanley cup. 15 of those teams are playoff teams. That doesn't make trading a first rounder a mistake. Rental markets are not the same every year. 

 

He's stating the obvious, if you're going to trade a first rounder it's more valuable to trade for somebody with term. But those guys aren't always available and the cap is the cap. Basically, the article is an exercise in "Duh."

 

I also would like for the Rangers to make a hockey trade, and not dabble in this year's rental market. 

Edited February 4 by Pete

[Br4d]

The Rangers keep renting to fill holes.  That's not the way to do it.  You rent to improve a team that already has a real shot at a cup and is looking for depth or an added quality that it does not possess to reinforce the shot.

 

What we've gotten out of this the last couple of years is a few more goals than we'd naturally have scored and maybe a win or two in the '21-22 playoffs.

 

Now if the Rangers want to make a real hockey trade to add a quality (leadership up front) that they currently do not possess I'm all for that.  There's enough talent on the team that if you add a leader we might get lucky in the tournament and go on a roll.

 

Renting a RW or a C is just going to be giving up more future assets for next to no chance to actually win the cup.

 

Last year we rented two RW's and saw everybody else stand around waiting for them to do something.  Same thing will happen this year except the people we get a RW and C will not be half as talented as the two RW's we brought in last season.

[BrooksBurner]

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't think it's an edge case, there are plenty of organizations who do that. Some of them just do it to get the playoff revenue. 

 

The point is, 31 teams don't win the Stanley cup. 15 of those teams are playoff teams. That doesn't make trading a first rounder a mistake. Rental markets are not the same every year. 

 

He's stating the obvious, if you're going to trade a first rounder it's more valuable to trade for somebody with term. But those guys aren't always available and the cap is the cap. Basically, the article is an exercise in "Duh."

 

I also would like for the Rangers to make a hockey trade, and not dabble in this year's rental market. 

Playoff revenue is besides the point. That’s from a business point of view, not a winning point of view.
 

Teams still make these trades in the face of the odds, so what might seem like a duh thing to you (and me), apparently isn’t to others.

[4EverRangerFrank]

The real 'duh' moment for this team is to go back and watch game film of how GOOD we were playing a couple of months ago. We are missing that secret sauce ingredient that we had been playing with. Trade for that! The mix of talent and heart is here in this group, but it has been lost again as the season ground on. 

[BrooksBurner]

20 minutes ago, 4EverRangerFrank said:

The real 'duh' moment for this team is to go back and watch game film of how GOOD we were playing a couple of months ago. We are missing that secret sauce ingredient that we had been playing with. Trade for that! The mix of talent and heart is here in this group, but it has been lost again as the season ground on. 

The secret sauce they’d see on tape is Panarin at a 145 pt clip, and amazing goaltending.

[Br4d]

15 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

The secret sauce they’d see on tape is Panarin at a 145 pt clip, and amazing goaltending.

 

And winning almost every 1 goal game.  Any team that wins a huge percentage of the close games is going to look better than it actually is.

[Pete]

56 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Playoff revenue is besides the point. That’s from a business point of view, not a winning point of view.
 

Teams still make these trades in the face of the odds, so what might seem like a duh thing to you (and me), apparently isn’t to others.

Well that's why I'm saying it's reductive to just look at the percentage of teams who gave away a first rounder who went on to when the Cup and using that low percentage as a proof point not to make a move. 

 

For example Vancouver being at the top of the league and sending a first round pick to Calgary makes complete sense even if they don't win the Cup. 

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

The secret sauce they’d see on tape is Panarin at a 145 pt clip, and amazing goaltending.

Was the goaltending ever really amazing this season? Was Shesty ever "hot"? I haven't really dug into the numbers.  

Edited February 4 by Pete

[Br4d]

Just now, Pete said:

Was the goaltending ever really amazing?

 

Quick was amazing.  That's how he got out to 9-0-1 or whatever.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

And winning almost every 1 goal game.  Any team that wins a huge percentage of the close games is going to look better than it actually is.

Counterpoint, any team that wins a huge percentage of one goal games is ready for playoff hockey because they know how to win one goal games.

 

I'm kind of confused by your insistence on spinning every positive thing that team does in to a negative.

 

You want to win one goal games. I don't see why anybody would argue that or look at it in a negative light. 

Edited February 4 by Pete

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Br4d said:

 

Quick was amazing.  That's how he got out to 9-0-1 or whatever.

I haven't looked at the numbers, I edited my post. Was he amazing or was he getting goal support? 

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Counterpoint, any team that wins a huge percentage of one goal games is ready for playoff hockey because they know how to win one goal games.

 

I'm kind of confused by your insistence on spinning every positive thing that team does in to a negative.

 

You want to win one goal games. I don't see why anybody would argue that or look at it in a negative light. 

 

1 goal games tend to be split fairly evenly, with some adjustment for record - good teams winning more and bad teams losing more.

 

The Rangers were 11-1-1 in 1 goal games at one point which is a really good and really lucky record to have against almost anybody.  They were 24-8-1 over that span.

 

Since then they are 1-3-2 in 1 goal games which is a bad and unlucky record to have against almost anybody.  They are 6-8-2 over the span in which 1 goal games have bounced the other way.

 

This doesn't mean the Rangers weren't very good in the first 33 games, just that they were very good and very lucky.  They have been mediocre since then winning just 6 of 16 games however they have been mediocre and unlucky.

 

Note that at no point this season did the Rangers + goal differential match the record they had.  They were very lucky in the 1 goal games and so at one point they had a .750+ points percentage with a goal differential that would have suggested .625 or so.

[Pete]

31 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

1 goal games tend to be split fairly evenly, with some adjustment for record - good teams winning more and bad teams losing more.

 

The Rangers were 11-1-1 in 1 goal games at one point which is a really good and really lucky record to have against almost anybody.  They were 24-8-1 over that span.

 

Since then they are 1-3-2 in 1 goal games which is a bad and unlucky record to have against almost anybody.  They are 6-8-2 over the span in which 1 goal games have bounced the other way.

 

This doesn't mean the Rangers weren't very good in the first 33 games, just that they were very good and very lucky.  They have been mediocre since then winning just 6 of 16 games however they have been mediocre and unlucky.

 

Note that at no point this season did the Rangers + goal differential match the record they had.  They were very lucky in the 1 goal games and so at one point they had a .750+ points percentage with a goal differential that would have suggested .625 or so.

You're going to have to support all of this with data. You're making a lot of claims that seem to be out of thin air. 

 

Who says one goal games are split evenly?

 

When did they not have a goal differential that suggested they were as good as their record?

 

Who's to say what goal differential suggests what winning percentage? 

 

There's a lot of opinion being posted as fact. 

Edited February 4 by Pete

[Br4d]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're going to have to support all of this with data. You're making a lot of claims that seem to be out of thin air. 

 

I don't work for you. 

 

Just do the research on goal differential yourself.  It's established sports science at this point and has been for decades now.  Basically since sports science became a thing.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Br4d said:

 

I don't work for you. 

 

Just do the research on goal differential yourself.  It's established sports science at this point and has been for decades now.  Basically since sports science became a thing.

So you're making it up. Got it. 

 

For what it's worth, if you're the one making the claim, you need to be the one supporting it with data.

 

It's not my job to fact check you. I don't work for you. 

Edited February 4 by Pete

[jsm7302]

4 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

It’s 2 out of 18 Cup winners traded a 1st for a pure rental, which is 11%, and that’s a macro percentage. To get an individual team’s probability of winning, you’d have to count every trade involving a 1st for a pure rental at the deadline, and then do 2 winners divided by that number. It probably only boosts an individual’s team’s odds of winning by a small fractional percent.

You're talking about rentals; I was giving the percentage of cup winners who traded  a first at all which was 4 out of 18 or 22%. Whether it be the 11% or 22%, I think it is fair to say that it isn't a productive action at the deadline historically especially when giving a deeper dive into each teams situation. Like I said earlier, if it's for a longer term solution then go for it however if it is for a rental then Id stay put 

[4EverRangerFrank]

4 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

And winning almost every 1 goal game.  Any team that wins a huge percentage of the close games is going to look better than it actually is.

Maybe so if the stats prove the point. I’m going to go full-Boomer here and bring up ‘94. That team, from my clouded recollection seemed to win plenty of games they ‘should have lost.’ But my memory of it was that when down, you just knew they would come back and win. In a way, same thing can be possible here. 
 

Rant over. LOL

Edited February 4 by 4EverRangerFrank

[Br4d]

25 minutes ago, 4EverRangerFrank said:

Maybe so if the stats prove the point. I’m going to go full-Boomer here and bring up ‘94. That team, from my clouded recollection seemed to win plenty of games the ‘should have lost.’ But my memory of it was that when down, you just knew they would come back and win. In a way, same thing can be possible here. 
 

Rant over. LOL

 

The '93-94 Rangers went 16-9-8 in 1 goal games in the regular season.  The .606 point percentage was less than the .667 points percentage overall which is probably about right because luck is supposed to regress to the means over a large sample.  

[RangersIn7]

This is a dead air, click bait article from Uncle Larry.

 

Thats all.

 

1 team a year wins the cup

Yet plenty are good enough to do so.

They just don’t.

 

Its part of the sport.