Article: Calen Addison And the Wild Need Each Other

[mnfaninnc]

After reading the Evolving Hockey internal review of itself, I came away with a more complete view of them. I still don't think their model is accurate. Their take was that they do much better with RFAs than UFAs, at least this year. They thought that a lot of UFAs signed weird, short term deals, with players, potentially, waiting for the cap increases. 

I also thought it was interesting to look at their "value" index, where MN finished 3rd. AZ and Chicago finished last. I think you could look at that index and maybe see which places are considered destinations and which are considered overpayment needed to go there. 

My last take on this was with the goalies. It appears Evolving Hockey had a pretty brutal year predicting goalie salaries. And, in their models when doing the evaluations, they eliminated the goalies from the graphs. Long story short, their model for goalies is probably way off (and from their view, goalies are very underpaid). 

If you're geeky and like the numbers crunch and dive into equations, the article Tony linked me to is probably a good read. They were very good at the <$2m, yet they kicked out all the league minimum deals. At the >$5m, they were not too reliable, however, also at that price, they were not expecting such short term deals.

My conclusion is essentially the same, they are like looking up your house to get a ballpark value on realtor.com or zillow.com. Some players are presented very nicely, others need a lot of work. Addy, to me, is in the latter category. But, if we're carrying 22 players, he does give us a touch of flexibility by being able to fill in at wing decently. I still believe he should be happy with his QO, and if I'm Shooter, I'm wasting no sleep over him not signing, and slipping his deal in one of my file boxes on the desk. Really, there's no negotiation here. It's more of a take it and prove me wrong for next time, or leave it and I'll jettison you to AZ. 

Oh, and there was one other thing I found strange. It was Matt Dumba's contract in AZ. EH had him listed at $2.6m and he signed for $3.9m. I thought we saw reports of EH listing him at a multi-year $6m hit earlier in the last season. If you're going to change your projections mid stream, yes, you'll probably do better.

Edited September 3, 2023 by mnfaninnc

[joebou15]

1 hour ago, mnfaninnc said:

After reading the Evolving Hockey internal review of itself, I came away with a more complete view of them. I still don't think their model is accurate. Their take was that they do much better with RFAs than UFAs, at least this year. They thought that a lot of UFAs signed weird, short term deals, with players, potentially, waiting for the cap increases. 

I also thought it was interesting to look at their "value" index, where MN finished 3rd. AZ and Chicago finished last. I think you could look at that index and maybe see which places are considered destinations and which are considered overpayment needed to go there. 

My last take on this was with the goalies. It appears Evolving Hockey had a pretty brutal year predicting goalie salaries. And, in their models when doing the evaluations, they eliminated the goalies from the graphs. Long story short, their model for goalies is probably way off (and from their view, goalies are very underpaid). 

If you're geeky and like the numbers crunch and dive into equations, the article Tony linked me to is probably a good read. They were very good at the <$2m, yet they kicked out all the league minimum deals. At the >$5m, they were not too reliable, however, also at that price, they were not expecting such short term deals.

My conclusion is essentially the same, they are like looking up your house to get a ballpark value on realtor.com or zillow.com. Some players are presented very nicely, others need a lot of work. Addy, to me, is in the latter category. But, if we're carrying 22 players, he does give us a touch of flexibility by being able to fill in at wing decently. I still believe he should be happy with his QO, and if I'm Shooter, I'm wasting no sleep over him not signing, and slipping his deal in one of my file boxes on the desk. Really, there's no negotiation here. It's more of a take it and prove me wrong for next time, or leave it and I'll jettison you to AZ. 

Oh, and there was one other thing I found strange. It was Matt Dumba's contract in AZ. EH had him listed at $2.6m and he signed for $3.9m. I thought we saw reports of EH listing him at a multi-year $6m hit earlier in the last season. If you're going to change your projections mid stream, yes, you'll probably do better.

Their models are a projection to get relative worth to a team. There is projection, and then what the market actually sets. We've also seen a swing in players coming off their ELCs getting paid more on a smaller sample size that's harder to project. Boldy falls in this. 

 

Are you upset when the storm prediction center predicts elevated chances for severe weather in your area and it fails to amount to anything?

It's always been a guess, and an educated one, at best, based on similar contracts and trends within the league based on historical measures. To know how any given year's market swings is impossible. Not to mention, when GMs go crazy and spend large sums of money on players that no other GM would have forked over.

To say they're unreliable is to not know what it is they're actually attempting to accomplish.

[Tony Abbott]

2 hours ago, mnfaninnc said:

Oh, and there was one other thing I found strange. It was Matt Dumba's contract in AZ. EH had him listed at $2.6m and he signed for $3.9m. I thought we saw reports of EH listing him at a multi-year $6m hit earlier in the last season. If you're going to change your projections mid stream, yes, you'll probably do better.

I can explain this one: They have different projections for different sets of term, ranging from 1-7/8 years, then projections that go based off when they sign: The July 1-31 period (Bulk of UFAs), the August-October (leftovers/PTO season), and the start of the season to June (usually, extension season). 

That $6 million figure was based off a six-year contract signed in July. Dumba signed for one year, and in August, where they projected $2.46 million.

[joebou15]

15 hours ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

Jon Merrill was only -2 on the year.  Given that Addison was -17, I suspect that Merrill was on the positive side of the ledger when Addison wasn't his partner. The Wild didn't do Merrill any favors by pairing him with Addison!

Merrill is a mediocre 3rd pairing defenseman. Addison is far below average as a defenseman. His only skill that's helpful is his PP ability and that's somewhat overhyped because of the other changes made to how the PP units were setup compared to prior years, and the skill of those surrounding Addison--notice that his scoring doesn't hold up even strength.

I'm not suggesting that Addison isn't above average running the PP, but I'm also saying he isn't elite. He might be slightly above average with a few other Wild players who are average behind him.

It made sense to use Addison to run the PP primarily because it keeps the top 4 D-men fresh for even strength and PK minutes, but Addison was probably the worst defenseman they put on the ice even strength--the save percentage with him on ice was far lower than with any other regular skater.

Addison has not held up doing the important things his position generally requires, like skating hard to get back on defense when the puck is behind you. I'm skeptical that he'll become adequate on D, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve more opportunities.

Calen Addison Team rank among defensemen Defensive stats

CA/60

2nd (Brodin)

 

xGA/60

5th (Spurgeon, Middleton, Brodin, Merrill)

 

On-ice Sv%

8th (Everyone)

 

SA/60

5th (Brodin, Spurgeon, Dumba, Middleton)

 

Calen Addison Team Rank Among defensemen Offensive stats

 

GF/60

5th (Klingberg, Spurgeon, Brodin, Middleton)

SF/60

3rd (Goligoski, Spurgeon)

 

xGF/60

6th (Goligoski, Klingberg, Spurgeon, Brodin, Dumba)

 

Sh%

6th (Klingberg, Spurgeon, Middleton, Merrill, Brodin)

 

You're making Addison seem like he was by far the worst defenseman on the team. The above 5v5 rate stats show he was far more in the middle on many of these stats in his rookie season in the NHL. All while also excelling on the PP this past season. I'm by no means saying Addison is perfect, and I don't think anyone here is going to say that. But he's not bad, nor should the Wild give up on the kid. 

And if Addison got the benefit of even a .900 or better save percentage, we're talking about his +/- and his contributions way differently. I'd even say his offensive stats, which rank him lower, are skewed by small samples of both Klingberg and Goligoski. Not mention, Merrill ranked lower than Addison in many of these categories, especially defensively.

Edited September 3, 2023 by joebou15

[mnfaninnc]

5 hours ago, joebou15 said:

Are you upset when the storm prediction center predicts elevated chances for severe weather in your area and it fails to amount to anything?

Interesting random question. Yes, I am. In fact, I love severe weather, it's exciting! I'd think storm chasing would be thrilling, but have never tried it.

[mnfaninnc]

4 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

That $6 million figure was based off a six-year contract signed in July. Dumba signed for one year, and in August, where they projected $2.46 million.

That seems like quite a drop to me, even if it is only a 1 year deal. While he signed in August, something tells me the deal was on the table in July. It seems strange to me that a 6 X $6m was projected where a 1 X $2.46 could be had. To me, that doesn't make sense.

But, I appreciate the information. 

[mnfaninnc]

4 hours ago, joebou15 said:

You're making Addison seem like he was by far the worst defenseman on the team. The above 5v5 rate stats show he was far more in the middle on many of these stats in his rookie season in the NHL. All while also excelling on the PP this past season. I'm by no means saying Addison is perfect, and I don't think anyone here is going to say that. But he's not bad, nor should the Wild give up on the kid. 

So, then we go to the eye test of Addison to see if the stats match up

1. Addison looks disinterested defensively.
2. Addison fails to take the body, even just to cancel out a forward.
3. Addison constantly got abused by middleweight or larger forwards physically.
4. There was a real reason the save% was low when Addison was on the ice, his guy was the one who was scoring.
5. When Addison got beat at the opposing blue line, he did not hustle back.
6. Addison was weak defending, specifically upper body.
7. Addison did not have a good defensive stick like, say, Spurgeon.
8. Addison did not have a good jump on rebounds like, say everyone else.

These are the deficiencies in his game from his rookie year. Expected growth should help take care of some of these. But, more than filling out, if he did not hit the weight room hard this offseason, he's toast. Much of this can get fixed by simply coming in far stronger than last season. 

I can tell everyone this, if I'm Shooter and Addison walks into training camp and gets measured, and he's about the same last season, I'm immediately on the phone trying to find him a new home. If Addison is noticeably larger and weighs in significantly heavier, I sit back and smile and think I can give him more ice time. This particular item is/was completely in Addison's hands. Did he take advantage of it?

It would be nice if he did!

[Imyourhuckleberry]

7 hours ago, joebou15 said:

xGA/60

5th (Spurgeon, Middleton, Brodin, Merrill)

Is that 5v5, because Addison played more than 1/4 of his minutes on the PP and teams don't get scored on all that frequently when they are on the power play.

I'm going to answer that it wasn't because 5v5, Addison had the highest goals against per 60 among Wild defensive regulars. Anyone else who was close to him, or worse, didn't finish the season with the Wild, nor did they play more than 12 games with the Wild. He stood out as having the worst numbers by far.

The even strength on-ice goals for vs. goals against percentage for Addison was the worst among all Wild defensemen who played at least 5 games.

For a little context:

When Spurgeon was on the ice even strength, the Wild scored over 60% of the goals.

With Addison on even strength, the opposition scored roughly 60% of the goals.

[Sviginak]

Statistics! You can make them say whatever you want is the saying that goes with them.

[joebou15]

17 hours ago, mnfaninnc said:

So, then we go to the eye test of Addison to see if the stats match up

1. Addison looks disinterested defensively.
2. Addison fails to take the body, even just to cancel out a forward.
3. Addison constantly got abused by middleweight or larger forwards physically.
4. There was a real reason the save% was low when Addison was on the ice, his guy was the one who was scoring.
5. When Addison got beat at the opposing blue line, he did not hustle back.
6. Addison was weak defending, specifically upper body.
7. Addison did not have a good defensive stick like, say, Spurgeon.
8. Addison did not have a good jump on rebounds like, say everyone else.

These are the deficiencies in his game from his rookie year. Expected growth should help take care of some of these. But, more than filling out, if he did not hit the weight room hard this offseason, he's toast. Much of this can get fixed by simply coming in far stronger than last season. 

I can tell everyone this, if I'm Shooter and Addison walks into training camp and gets measured, and he's about the same last season, I'm immediately on the phone trying to find him a new home. If Addison is noticeably larger and weighs in significantly heavier, I sit back and smile and think I can give him more ice time. This particular item is/was completely in Addison's hands. Did he take advantage of it?

It would be nice if he did!

Can you explain why you refer to Bill Guerin as "Shooter?" It's a nickname I can't connect the dots on.

[joebou15]

14 hours ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

Is that 5v5, because Addison played more than 1/4 of his minutes on the PP and teams don't get scored on all that frequently when they are on the power play.

I'm going to answer that it wasn't because 5v5, Addison had the highest goals against per 60 among Wild defensive regulars. Anyone else who was close to him, or worse, didn't finish the season with the Wild, nor did they play more than 12 games with the Wild. He stood out as having the worst numbers by far.

The even strength on-ice goals for vs. goals against percentage for Addison was the worst among all Wild defensemen who played at least 5 games.

For a little context:

When Spurgeon was on the ice even strength, the Wild scored over 60% of the goals.

With Addison on even strength, the opposition scored roughly 60% of the goals.

It was 5v5 stats.

[mnfaninnc]

19 minutes ago, joebou15 said:

Can you explain why you refer to Bill Guerin as "Shooter?" It's a nickname I can't connect the dots on.

When Guerin 1st became GM, over at the then, Vox, Hockey Wilderness, he looked like a dead ringer for Shooter McGavin in Happy Gilmore. The name stuck, complete with plenty of gifs. Protec's got some good ones.

[mnfaninnc]

15 hours ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

For a little context:

When Spurgeon was on the ice even strength, the Wild scored over 60% of the goals.

With Addison on even strength, the opposition scored roughly 60% of the goals.

I think what we're looking at here is stat facts vs. eye test. The stat facts would suggest that bad luck had most to do with Addison's -17. Yet the eye test would confirm that it wasn't bad luck. 

More than any other defender, Addison would get beat clean and lose his man, especially in tight where he could not control him. Other Wild defenders recovered somewhat to disrupt a little, but this was not the case with Addison, mainly due to him being very weak.  

Some would then put the blame on Merrill, who is defensively responsible, but limited in his ability to cover. He was better than Goligoski in this. Many times Addison's negative mark came where he was nowhere to be found as he'd been crushed into the boards somewhere and needed a few moments to collect his composure. 

The eye test confirms without a doubt that Addison was as bad defensively as the -17 said, in fact, that -17 may have been kind to the terrible defense he showed, also marked by several instances where he looked completely disinterested in defending. 

Also, if I'm the goaltender and know just how bad Addison is defensively, I may end up shading over to his side just a bit which leaves an opening more on Merrill's side. It shouldn't happen, but if the guy continues to get beat, you'd have to anticipate that opposing teams would try and take advantage of the XvAddison matchup. 

The next debate is about if Addison's strengths running PP1 outweigh his weaknesses playing 5v5 or less? Granted we scored more goals with Addison on PP1 than when he wasn't. But, late in the year, when Kaprizov and Ek were injured, it's not really apples to apples to compare Spurgeon/Klingberg at the top on PP1. 

I wasn't particularly impressed with Klingberg 5v5 either, he did some strange things, but at least he was willing to have someone run into him and cancel him out. Even when Addison had that happen to him, the effect more often was Addison getting run over and the other guy not being canceled. 

So, as I said above, many of the weaknesses seen in Addison's game can be fixed by one outcome: Getting significantly stronger. That means Addison had 3-4 months to be on a heavy lifting program focusing on upper body but not neglecting the lower body. Muscle is heavier, so with the increased muscle, one would expect a much heavier Addison also. 

I keep going back to Addison's sound bite of needing to just keep doing what he's been doing to get out of the doghouse. This shows a complete lack of awareness on his behalf. Perhaps he really didn't mean that and it was the cliche he just used? But, if that's how he really thinks, then I have serious doubt that he spent the summer lifting hard. 

I'm not expecting him to turn into Radko Gudas by any means, but even the small Goligoski battles in the corners and pins guys up on the boards. This does not happen with Addison and from the looks of it, he continues to commit the same mistakes over and over again. For a coach, that is really frustrating....benching frustrating, even Prossbox frustrating. They had patience with him for 3/4 of the year and he still committed the same mistakes. When Spurgeon opens up and says he doesn't come to him for help, then we get a better look at where the problem lies.

[Imyourhuckleberry]

10 hours ago, joebou15 said:

It was 5v5 stats.

Then your stats must be wrong since they don't agree with NHL.com or hockey-reference.com.

5v5, the Wild were scored on the most frequently with Addison on the ice, at least among all players who exceeded 12 games. The Wild were outscored by more than 1 goal per 60 minutes of even strength ice time for Addison.

I'm not suggesting that Addison cannot be adequate if he changes his attitude and strength of play, but I'm guessing there are reasons the Wild gave up fewer goals per 60 when Addison was not in the game, and I'm sure those reasons significantly influenced why he found himself out of the lineup.

After his benching, prior to Kaprivoz getting injured, the Wild weren't far off the PP efficiency they had with Addison(on a per PP opportunity scale--it did take them longer to score, on average, so lowered their efficiency on a per minute basis), but the team save percentages and winning percentages elevated after they benched him.  At least until some of their top players ended up injured. Shaw wasn't a top player, but he had also worked himself into a very solid player, so losing him took something away from the roster as well.

I'm hoping Addison plays a lot stronger from the 3rd pairing this season and I look forward to seeing how the numbers shake out as the season progresses. I'm not suggesting that Goligoski is a lot better, but he's a respected veteran. Merrill is better on defense, but he definitely doesn't do much for the offense.

The On-Ice even strength goals for % for Merrill was 46.8%. Addison played in 62 games while Merrill played in 73. Given that Merrill was on Addison's pairing for much of the time, him being more than 6% higher than Addison suggests that Merrill was likely above 50% in that stat when Addison wasn't dragging down the defense for his pairing.

Also, Klingberg wasn't an elite power play guy either, but even strength, the team had far better success than when Addison was on the ice.