Enjoyed the detailed perspective, buy didn't have enough time to fully explore all you presented. Looking forward to delving into the comparison graphics.
Agreed wholeheartedly regarding OEL, Stepanek and Kessel. Would be interested in your evaluation of Conor Garland's contributions to the Coyotes. For the price I believe he can be a major factor in moving the Coyotes towards becoming a viable contender. But so many other pieces are needed to allow his true talents to thrive.
You are so spot on. I don't have the statistical capabilities of you, but said so many of the same things in my own words. Your last paragraph sums it all up in a nutshell. I never thought he was a big loss. You have confirmed my beliefs. He sucked!
There were a few bits I thought were glossed over too.
Grabner's injury played a significant part in his decline. That's no one's fault but poor luck. Otherwise he was on track to replicate what he did for New Jersey the season prior.
I also don't see anything discussing Chayka's use of LTIR/retired contracts stuffing the cap space. He's used the leverage of their own cheaper roster to help gain some of those trades. They'll be coming off the books in the next season I believe (Pronger, Hossa, & Ribiero's buyout as some examples).
Thank you for reading, and I appreciate the rant - I'm glad you got something out of the piece even if you didn't agree, haha.
Just a few quick points of response:
1. On micro vs macro, I don't think it's about intimidation and I certainly don't think that Chayka uses microstats simply because they're not scrutinizable. But I do think the results speak for themselves in terms of what's been valued.
2. The availability to public scrutiny of macrostats isn't why I generally prefer them (I think I explain my reasons pretty clearly), but while online communities can be echo chambers I think you underestimate the extent to which public models are critiqued and evolve as s result. Having to defend your model's outputs constantly to the public isn't nothing.
3. Let me clarify my criticism of the RFA signings. I am not judging Chayka for not exactly replicating some of the greatest contracts of the cap era. I am certainly not saying that players get paid based on WAR. But the comparison is often made, and it's worth pointing out the deep philosophical difference between what Poile did (paying young players who were already worth the money) and what Chayka did (betting on potential). Chayka's strategy was unique, and observed as being unique, and I don't think it can be chalked up to market trends - which are not as extreme as I think you depict them. RFAs in general, particularly the ones far below that Draisaitl/Matthews class, still get underpaid.
4. On the graphs and declarative statements - you can disagree with them if you like. The point of the graphs and the WAR and all that is as a proxy for what the "macrostats" say, to illustrate that many of the moves Chayka has made contradict "analytics" as most people understand them. That's one of the main points of the article - that Chayka deserves to be criticized as any GM with his record would be. Now, we could bicker about the minutae like the Galchenyuk thing (I think his career since 2018 is a decent indicator that the stats were right about him), but the broader thing I want to be taken away is not the Coyotes would be a champion if Chayka had just used HockeyViz to build his team, but that many of the decisions he has made that have backfired were not backed up by macrostats, and therefore "analytics" as a whole should not be discredited by his mistakes (which I think you agree with).
Enjoyed the detailed perspective, buy didn't have enough time to fully explore all you presented. Looking forward to delving into the comparison graphics.
Agreed wholeheartedly regarding OEL, Stepanek and Kessel. Would be interested in your evaluation of Conor Garland's contributions to the Coyotes. For the price I believe he can be a major factor in moving the Coyotes towards becoming a viable contender. But so many other pieces are needed to allow his true talents to thrive.
Garland is an excellent find, I'm a big fan of him.
You are so spot on. I don't have the statistical capabilities of you, but said so many of the same things in my own words. Your last paragraph sums it all up in a nutshell. I never thought he was a big loss. You have confirmed my beliefs. He sucked!
There were a few bits I thought were glossed over too.
Grabner's injury played a significant part in his decline. That's no one's fault but poor luck. Otherwise he was on track to replicate what he did for New Jersey the season prior.
I also don't see anything discussing Chayka's use of LTIR/retired contracts stuffing the cap space. He's used the leverage of their own cheaper roster to help gain some of those trades. They'll be coming off the books in the next season I believe (Pronger, Hossa, & Ribiero's buyout as some examples).
Thank you for reading, and I appreciate the rant - I'm glad you got something out of the piece even if you didn't agree, haha.
Just a few quick points of response:
1. On micro vs macro, I don't think it's about intimidation and I certainly don't think that Chayka uses microstats simply because they're not scrutinizable. But I do think the results speak for themselves in terms of what's been valued.
2. The availability to public scrutiny of macrostats isn't why I generally prefer them (I think I explain my reasons pretty clearly), but while online communities can be echo chambers I think you underestimate the extent to which public models are critiqued and evolve as s result. Having to defend your model's outputs constantly to the public isn't nothing.
3. Let me clarify my criticism of the RFA signings. I am not judging Chayka for not exactly replicating some of the greatest contracts of the cap era. I am certainly not saying that players get paid based on WAR. But the comparison is often made, and it's worth pointing out the deep philosophical difference between what Poile did (paying young players who were already worth the money) and what Chayka did (betting on potential). Chayka's strategy was unique, and observed as being unique, and I don't think it can be chalked up to market trends - which are not as extreme as I think you depict them. RFAs in general, particularly the ones far below that Draisaitl/Matthews class, still get underpaid.
4. On the graphs and declarative statements - you can disagree with them if you like. The point of the graphs and the WAR and all that is as a proxy for what the "macrostats" say, to illustrate that many of the moves Chayka has made contradict "analytics" as most people understand them. That's one of the main points of the article - that Chayka deserves to be criticized as any GM with his record would be. Now, we could bicker about the minutae like the Galchenyuk thing (I think his career since 2018 is a decent indicator that the stats were right about him), but the broader thing I want to be taken away is not the Coyotes would be a champion if Chayka had just used HockeyViz to build his team, but that many of the decisions he has made that have backfired were not backed up by macrostats, and therefore "analytics" as a whole should not be discredited by his mistakes (which I think you agree with).