Carter to LA

[Kin]

Let's make this simple, do you or don't you think Johnson's +- trend means anything?

I don't think +/-, as a statistic, has a lot of value. I really, genuinely don't know how to make that any simpler for you.

 

[Mack674]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

Yet, you won't come right out and say that you agree that Johnson's +- trend has meaning and shows he is horrible defensively.  So you can see why it appears that you are claiming that Johnson's trend is meaningless.

It's not a precise stat. I'm not crazy about it - particularly when comparing with other teams because the team a player is on influences +/- quite a bit.

So I looked at Johnson's +/- among LA dmen only. He has the worst +/- each of his four seasons there and usually by quite a margin. Therefore, I'd say that margin is so great and with the consistency of being at the bottom every year on one team, that would overcome a lot of the lack of precision in that stat and support an argument that he has defensive issues (as the scouting reports suggest).

I haven't seen enough of him to say anything beyond that.

^
See, there. I usually try not to get too involved anyway because someone else eventually comes along here and articulates my thoughts alot better and more to the point than I would.

 

[ontariojames]

You clearly implied that you weren't convinced that Johnson's +- trend had a whole lot of meaning.

No, I'm flat out stating explicitly that +/- itself doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

Yet, you won't come right out and say that you agree that Johnson's +- trend has meaning and shows he is horrible defensively.  So you can see why it appears that you are claiming that Johnson's trend is meaningless.

It's not a precise stat. I'm not crazy about it - particularly when comparing with other teams because the team a player is on influences +/- quite a bit.

So I looked at Johnson's +/- among LA dmen only. He has the worst +/- each of his four seasons there and usually by quite a margin. Therefore, I'd say that margin is so great and with the consistency of being at the bottom every year on one team, that would overcome a lot of the lack of precision in that stat and support an argument that he has defensive issues (as the scouting reports suggest).

I haven't seen enough of him to say anything beyond that.

Thankyou, and what you said regarding +- is all I'm saying as well. Many times it is meaningless, but when there is a trend as strong as it is for as long as it is with Johnson, at that point it clearly means something.

 

[Mack674]

I agree with you but with Mogilny I wasnt really going at the term of the deal, just kind of the fact that under this CBA, if you cant trade a guy and he's not performing and youre out of options he can get buried in the minors forever and well, thats that. Which is kind of sad, I though Mogilny could have still played a season or two. I really liked him, thought he was a great player and to see that be the end of him was depressing. There needs to be more flexibility.

To a lesser extent, and only because I never really watched/liked the guy all that much, look at Jeff Finger. The guy went from being a regular NHL player to buried in the minors because he got overpaid and nobody would take him. He could be playing in the NHL now, but isn't, because he's not nearly worth the money he's paid which is no fault of his own.

Im not crying my heart out over here for some guys making millions to play hockey, lets clear that up, but damn.

I guess the underlying issue of what im trying to get at is that I wish/wonder if you could implement some kind of way of re-negotiating contracts if say both parties (the team and player) agreed to do so. Does Finger/Did Mogilny want to play in the AHL? Probobly not. Would they have taken the option of a pay reduction in exchange for being able to play in the NHL  or on another team?

I dont want to start a debate on that because im sure theres 10,000 different ways that re-negotiating contracts could turn into a storm of loopholes that ruin the CBA but its something I think about.

 

[ontariojames]

Let's make this simple, do you or don't you think Johnson's +- trend means anything?

I don't think +/-, as a statistic, has a lot of value. I really, genuinely don't know how to make that any simpler for you.

Ugh, I can see  you are going to continue to go in circles on this.

Of all the stupid things people say here I'm not sure why you decided to pick a fight with me over something completely logical that I said, it's quite disappointing since aside from your sometimes unnecessarily dickish demeanour towards people, you are my favourite poster here so far because we agree on just about everything and you seem to be quite intelligent and do a good job of taking people to task  on some of the foolish things they say. But, if you're going to come after me on stupid things I really don't mind a fight.

 

[Kin]

Ugh, I can see  you are going to continue to go in circles on this.

This really isn't circular. I think you're putting entirely too much stock in a flawed statistic, to the point that you're indicting the whole system of player evaluation by NHL GM's on its "strength", and that any meaningful discussion of defensive deficiencies is going to have more to do with evaluation than +/-.

Me, I'm not the one getting testy or defensive here. If you want to put that much stock in +/-, go to town. If you want to "fight" as you put it, then it's going to be one sided. I don't have much more to offer than my statement that +/- is kind of stupid, regardless of what trends you read into it.

 

[Kin]

To a lesser extent, and only because I never really watched/liked the guy all that much, look at Jeff Finger. The guy went from being a regular NHL player to buried in the minors because he got overpaid and nobody would take him. He could be playing in the NHL now, but isn't, because he's not nearly worth the money he's paid which is no fault of his own.

That's kind of a different issue though. Those are just bad contracts. Finger, Komisarek, whatever, the issue there is that they signed contracts for too much money. That's not about long term deals or deals where the cap hit doesn't always reflect the salary.

Obviously you don't want to sign players to deals they don't live up to but, as you point out, that's as true about 4 year deals as it is 10 year deals.

 

[ontariojames]

Ugh, I can see  you are going to continue to go in circles on this.

This really isn't circular. I think you're putting entirely too much stock in a flawed statistic, to the point that you're indicting the whole system of player evaluation by NHL GM's on its "strength", and that any meaningful discussion of defensive deficiencies is going to have more to do with evaluation than +/-.

Me, I'm not the one getting testy or defensive here. If you want to put that much stock in +/-, go to town. If you want to "fight" as you put it, then it's going to be one sided. I don't have much more to offer than my statement that +/- is kind of stupid, regardless of what trends you read into it.

You know what you're doing, you are dancing around my questions, it's pointless to continue this. Let's just move on.

 

[Kin]

You know what you're doing, you are dancing around my questions, it's pointless to continue this. Let's just move on.

....I'm genuinely stunned. I could not be any clearer on this. You're basing your opinion on a flawed statistic. That's as direct as possible.

 

[ontariojames]

You know what you're doing, you are dancing around my questions, it's pointless to continue this. Let's just move on.

....I'm genuinely stunned. I could not be any clearer on this. You're basing your opinion on a flawed statistic. That's as direct as possible.

No, you deny that you claim that Johnson's +- trend is meaningless, then you go on to claim that +- is meaningless, and then when I try to reconcile the two contradictory opinions, you dance around it.

 

[Kin]

No, you deny that you claim that Johnson's +- trend is meaningless, then you go on to claim that +- is meaningless, and then when I try to reconcile the two contradictory opinions, you dance around it.

I didn't deny that I claimed that Johnson's +/- trend is meaningless. I framed it in the larger sense of +/- is universally meaningless.

Think about it this way. Let's say you said that Warren Buffett was a great guy because he had a ton of money. Then I said that how much money anyone had wasn't a reflection of how great a guy they were. Am I denying your claim?

This really isn't tricky.

 

[ontariojames]

No, you deny that you claim that Johnson's +- trend is meaningless, then you go on to claim that +- is meaningless, and then when I try to reconcile the two contradictory opinions, you dance around it.

I didn't deny that I claimed that Johnson's +/- trend is meaningless. I framed it in the larger sense of +/- is universally meaningless.

Think about it this way. Let's say you said that Warren Buffett was a great guy because he had a ton of money. Then I said that how much money anyone had wasn't a reflection of how great a guy they were. Am I denying your claim?

This really isn't tricky.

Yes, but you intentionally won't  directly answer questions about Johnson's case specifically, which is what is making this complicated. You don't want to admit his +- trend is meaningful, but you also don't want to look foolish and say it is meaningless, so you are finding clever ways to dance around it and make it look like I'm the one who is being unreasonable in this argument.

Say what you want, I'll let you have last word, we both know what you are doing, I don't feel like going in circles for 10 pages, so go ahead and say how stunned you are at how simple this is and my inability to grasp it. Hopefully in the future we can avoid stupid arguments like this.

 

[Kin]

Yes, but you intentionally won't  directly answer questions about Johnson's case specifically, which is what is making this complicated.

So...because I'm not responding in exactly the way you want me to, I'm making this tricky? It's really not tough to extrapolate my feelings on Johnson based on what I've said. You just don't want to move on from it.

You don't want to admit his +- trend is meaningful

Because it's not.

but you also don't want to look foolish and say it is meaningless

so you are finding clever ways to dance around it and make it look like I'm the one who is being unreasonable in this argument.

Yeah, not hard.

 

[ontariojames]

Yes, but you intentionally won't  directly answer questions about Johnson's case specifically, which is what is making this complicated.

So...because I'm not responding in exactly the way you want me to, I'm making this tricky? It's really not tough to extrapolate my feelings on Johnson based on what I've said. You just don't want to move on from it.

You don't want to admit his +- trend is meaningful

Because it's not.

but you also don't want to look foolish and say it is meaningless

so you are finding clever ways to dance around it and make it look like I'm the one who is being unreasonable in this argument.

Yeah, not hard.

There, you finally said it, you admitted you don't think Johnsons's +- trend is meaningful, this is what you refused to admit which is what made the argument go in circles.

So let it be on the record that you don't think a player being dead last in +- on his team four years in a row is meaningful and that it's just a big coincidence and/or he is the most unlucky player in the history of professional sports.

 

[Tigger]

oj, I think Nik has said why it's largely meaningless on an individual level without context, I'm sure acknowledging a trend is ok but the stat is more accurately a team stat, and even that is in question when one brings goaltending into the mix, never mind development and stage of team building.

It is a flawed stat, there's no two ways around it. The stat might support an analysis but it isn't primary evidence.

Dig into his quality of competition versus toi and such, better argument all around.

 

[Kin]

There, you finally said it, you admitted you don't think Johnsons's +- trend is meaningful, this is what you refused to admit which is what made the argument go in circles.

No. Your inability to take "Johnson's +/- numbers are meaningless" from "everyone's +/- numbers are meaningless" is what dragged this out. Don't try to pretend anything else.

But I'll be sure to participate in our next enthralling discussion when I carefully explain to you that everything in a bag of oranges is, itself, an orange.

So let it be on the record that you don't think a player being dead last in +- on his team four years in a row is meaningful and that it's just a big coincidence and/or he is the most unlucky player in the history of professional sports.

If you want to phrase what I'm saying as such rather than "+/- is a flawed statistic that is meaningless when not combined with evaluation" then I'm entirely powerless to stop you. If you want to add in nonsense about coincidence or luck, be my guest. Even the minimal amount of work you think I was doing to make you look unreasonable is work I'll gladly pass on if you're willing to do it yourself.

 

[Bullfrog]

There, you finally said it, you admitted you don't think Johnsons's +- trend is meaningful, this is what you refused to admit which is what made the argument go in circles.

So let it be on the record that you don't think a player being dead last in +- on his team four years in a row is meaningful and that it's just a big coincidence and/or he is the most unlucky player in the history of professional sports.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Nik, but I'm pretty sure Nik's argument can be summed up in a simple Venn diagram. Picture this: a big pink circle that represents things Nik think are meaningless. Within this, a pale yellow circle that represents +/- as a statistic. Within this circle, one that is green that represents Jack Johnson's +/-.

 

[Tigger]

There, you finally said it, you admitted you don't think Johnsons's +- trend is meaningful, this is what you refused to admit which is what made the argument go in circles.

So let it be on the record that you don't think a player being dead last in +- on his team four years in a row is meaningful and that it's just a big coincidence and/or he is the most unlucky player in the history of professional sports.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Nik, but I'm pretty sure Nik's argument can be summed up in a simple Venn diagram. Picture this: a big pink circle that represents things Nik think are meaningless. Within this, a pale yellow circle that represents +/- as a statistic. Within this circle, one that is green that represents Jack Johnson's +/-.

I'm picturing it against a white background and having a stroke seeing green and pink fade into and out of each other...

 

[KW Sluggo]

LA managed to protect the 1st round pick by deferring it to 2013 in the event that the Kings miss the playoffs this year.

Take that Brian Burke.

 

[Tigger]

We don't know that....that was a rumour. Even so that doesn't show what he values Carter at. It tells me he didn't want to give up a....Kulemin, who scored 30 goals, was a 200ft player, and Kadri who was the top prospect in the system.

It was a rumour that came from the most legitimate of possible sources short of coming directly from the Leafs' front office. It may not be the gospel truth, but, it's close enough.

Hey busta, what do you think it would take for the Leafs to land Ryan? I'm only asking cause I know you've probably considered it... and I'm in greedy sob fantasy mode trying to figure out if the Leafs could afford, or should even bother trying to acquire, him and Brown.