NHL 2017 -Official Discussion Thread

[Smitty-48]

Well I think you're right about Kapanen, if Tanev was the trade, I don't think the Leafs would hesitate to throw Kapanen in.

[StCapps]

Well I think you're right about Kapanen, if Tanev was the trade, I don't think the Leafs would hesitate to throw Kapanen in.

Kapanen and JVR for Tanev? Done and done, zero hesitation, if I'm the Leafs, and that's on the table.

Lou would be thinking the same thing, I'm pretty sure.

[Smitty-48]

Yeah, done, but if I'm Vancouver I want more than that, 1st round pick as well maybe another piece on top, if anything is making the Leafs hesistate, it would be that, they're loathe to give up the 1st rounders unless it's a long term solution, like Fredie Andersen, Tanev only has a couple years left on his contract.

[Smitty-48]

I don't think Lamoriello is bluffing, in that they are prepared to wait and just start the season with the defense they have and see how it goes, before they do anything drastic, they need to move a couple forwards out, but those don't have to be top prospects, that could be Leivo, Soshnikov, Fehr, etc, in a minor deal rather than a blockbuster.

Like I said before, I think they may actually try Hainsey with Rielly, like poor man's Marc Methot, Rielly doesn't really need another high flying star defenseman to play with, he just needs a steady eddie who will cover the backdoor, and Tanev is not actually that big of an upgrade on Hainsey, similar player, Hainsey basically did what Tanev does, all the way to a Stanley Cup, for a couple million cheaper, he just doesn't have any media hype around him, he's not a "name".

I don't think the rebuild is cancelled just because they signed Marleau, Marleau is just a stopgap, if they want to blow it up and go big, they will put Nylander in play, but I don't think they'll be ready to do that, until they have to sign Matty and Marns.

They had a good year, but it was only one year, they want to see more, they want to see if Rielly can take another step, they want to see consistency from Nylander, they want to see how Travis Dermott comes along, they're still in rebuild play the kids mode, even though they made the playoffs, they're just looking to add some complimentary veterans to their existing core as stopgaps for a couple years.

I wouldn't sleep on Travis Dermott, he's close, he's 6' 215lbs, he skates well, he has high hockey IQ, he's nasty, I think he will be one of the top young defensive prospects in the league within a year, so I wouldn't panic and blow it up just to go out and get a Tanev for two years.

I also think Rielly has a lot more to give, he was lights out at the worlds and world cup, he was just carrying a rookie for most of the year, Zaitsev may have played a lot of KHL, but he was still a rookie at the NHL level, he was a great rookie, if some kid had done that they'd be calling him Hanafin, but still have to treat him as a rookie, basically, they're just looking to move Zaitsev down to the 4 spot, and find a more experienced hand to play with Rielly, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a "name", could just be a steady eddie, a Marc Methot type to compliment Rielly's run and gun style, but Rielly would still be the man, because Dallas is going to find out, Methot is not the same player, when he doesn't have a Karlsson to play with, and if you put a similarly defensively minded steady eddie with Rielly, he could do a lot more.

Babs was actually holding Rielly back last year, he wouldn't let him go, wouldn't let him play on the powerplay, was forcing him to try to be a shutdown guy, with mixed results, but Rielly actually played better when he was paired with Hunwick, or even Polak, which you saw in the playoffs, so they really just need an upgrade on Hunwick, in the short term at least, until they can find out what Rielly's ceiling is.

[Smitty-48]

Folks are saying "Rielly is not a 1, he's a 2, the Leafs need to go out and get a 1, even if they have to blow it up", but I'm saying; "hold on a second, bear in mind that the previous regime rushed Rielly and didn't slot him properly, and now Babs is having to go back and re-train him on the fly, so let's just wait and see what Babs can do, before we write Rielly off as a 2, give him another season or two under Babs, before you make any panic moves".

If a Tanev were available at a reasonable price, fine, but so long as these teams are asking the moon for slightly above average defensemen, just keep your powder dry and wait out, because again, Tanev is not Colton Parayko, he's a slightly better Ron Hainsey, for a million and a half more, Ron Hainsey could do 90% of what Tanev does, for cheaper, and no picks nor prospects given up to get him.

I think Rielly has the parts to be a 1, he's not going to be a shutdown guy, but which 1's are shutdown guy's? Karlsson is not a shutdown guy, Ekman-Larsson is not a shutdown guy, Letang is not a shutdown guy, Drew Doughty is not really a shutdown guy, and Duncan Keith relies heavily on Seabrook, the number 1 is not really your shutdown guy, you play him with a shutdown 2, which, Rielly has never really had.

You could swap Rielly for Ekman-Larsson, but if you play Ekman-Larsson with Zaitsev, it's not like Ekman-Larsson is going to be boxing people out and clearing the front of the net any better than Rielly did, and should point out, on a weak possesion team with no shutdown 2 neither, super duper number 1 Ekman-Larsson had a worse plus-minus than Rielly did last year, -25.

Fixing the Leafs defensive woes has more to do with the forwards and goaltender than it does the defense, the forwards coughing the puck up all over the place trying to make fancy plays, Matthews included, and the goalie letting softies in clean, when he had time and positioning on the shot. The majority of the Leafs defensive collapses last year, were not on the defense, it was the forwards turning the puck over and then going for a skate, followed by Andersen just whiffing on a very stoppable shot.

This is where a Marleau can help the team, because he is a smart two way player coming from a heavy two way possession system deeply ingrained, who is sound positionally and when in doubt just eats the puck rather than cough it up, scores most of his goals in tight rather than run n' gun off the rush, plays wing but has the mindset of a two way center, can take faceoffs, kill penalties and support the D down low, really just has to be able to skate, which, by all reports, he still can, so long as the wheels don't come off, I think Babs can deploy him to maximum effect, if the wheels come off, it's a bust, but I'll just have to wait and see him skate first, before I can make my assessment on that.

Near as I can tell however, it wasn't a Joe Pavelski carrying an aged Patrick Marleau, Patrick Marleau was carrying Pavelski, Marleau was the speed on that line, Pavelski is slow as molasses, and Joe Thornton racked up a lot of assists on the PP, but half of those were finished by Patrick Marleau, not Mikkel Boedker or whoever.

[StCapps]

Arvidsson locked in for seven years at $4.25 million cap hit?

How does Dave Poile do it? Aside from being a cap management genius.

[Fife]

People are feeling pretty happy around here this morning about that deal. :goteam:

[StCapps]

People are feeling pretty happy around here this morning about that deal. :goteam:

He could have gotten paid a lot more, he must really like it in Nashville. Y'all should be stoked about that, what's not to like?

[Montegriffo]

The Duckworth-Lewis method is one of the more complicated of the rules of cricket so I'm just going to outline a brief explanation here.

History and creation

Various different methods had been used previously to resolve rain-affected cricket games. The most common were the Average Run Rate method and the Most Productive Overs method.

These earlier methods had flaws that meant they produced unfair new target scores that altered the balance of the match, and were easily exploitable. The average run-rate method took no account of how many wickets were lost by the team batting second, but simply reflected how quickly they were scoring when the match was interrupted. So if a team felt a rain stoppage was likely, they could attempt to force the scoring rate without regard for the corresponding highly likely loss of wickets, skewing the comparison with the first team. The most productive overs method also took no account of wickets lost by the team batting second, and effectively penalized the team batting second for good bowling, by ignoring their best overs in setting the revised target.
D/L began in one-day internationals

The D/L method was devised by two British statisticians, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, as a result of the outcome to the semi-final in the 1992 Cricket World Cup between England and South Africa, where the most productive overs method was used. Rain stopped play for 12 minutes with South Africa needing 22 runs from 13 balls. The revised target left South Africa needing 21 runs from one ball, which was a reduction of only one run compared to a reduction of two overs, and a virtually impossible target given that the maximum score from one ball is generally six runs.[3]

Duckworth said, "I recall hearing Christopher Martin-Jenkins on radio saying 'surely someone, somewhere could come up with something better' and I soon realised that it was a mathematical problem that required a mathematical solution."[4][5]

The D/L method avoids this flaw: in this match, the revised D/L target would have left South Africa four to tie or five to win from the final ball.[6]

The D/L method was first used in international cricket on 1 January 1997 in the second match of the Zimbabwe versus England ODI series, which Zimbabwe won by seven runs.[7] The D/L method was formally adopted by the ICC in 1999 as the standard method of calculating target scores in rain-shortened one-day matches.

Theory
Calculation summary

The essence of the D/L method is 'resources'. Each team is taken to have two 'resources' to use to make as many runs as possible: the number of overs they have to receive; and the number of wickets they have in hand. At any point in any innings, a team's ability to score more runs depends on the combination of these two resources. Looking at historical scores, there is a very close correspondence between the availability of these resources and a team's final score, a correspondence which D/L exploits.[8]

The D/L method converts all possible combinations of overs (or, more accurately, balls) and wickets left into a combined resources remaining percentage figure (with 50 overs and 10 wickets = 100%), and these are all stored in a published table or computer. The target score for the team batting second ('Team 2') can be adjusted up or down from the total the team batting first ('Team 1') achieved using these resource percentages, to reflect the loss of resources to one or both teams when a match is shortened one or more times.

In the version of D/L most commonly in use in international and first-class matches (the 'Professional Edition'), the target for Team 2 is adjusted simply in proportion to the two teams' resources, i.e.

Team 2's par score = Team 1's score × Team 2's resources Team 1's resources . {\displaystyle {\text{Team 2's par score }}={\text{ Team 1's score}}\times {\frac {\text{Team 2's resources}}{\text{Team 1's resources}}}.} {\displaystyle {\text{Team 2's par score }}={\text{ Team 1's score}}\times {\frac {\text{Team 2's resources}}{\text{Team 1's resources}}}.}

If, as usually occurs, this 'par score' is a non-integer number of runs, then Team 2's target to win is this number rounded up to the next integer, and the score to tie (also called the par score), is this number rounded down to the preceding integer. If Team 2 reaches or passes the target score, then they have won the match. If the match ends when Team 2 has exactly met (but not passed) the par score then the match is a tie. If Team 2 fail to reach the par score then they have lost.

For example, if a rain delay means that Team 2 only has 90% of resources available, and Team 1 scored 254 with 100% of resources available, then 254 × 90% / 100% = 228.6, so Team 2's target is 229, and the score to tie is 228. The actual resource values used in the Professional Edition are not publicly available,[9] so a computer which has this software loaded must be used.

If it is a 50-over match and Team 1 completed its innings uninterrupted, then they had 100% resource available to them, so the formula simplifies to:

Team 2's par score = Team 1's score × Team 2's resources . {\displaystyle {\text{Team 2's par score }}={\text{ Team 1's score}}\times {\text{Team 2's resources}}.} {\displaystyle {\text{Team 2's par score }}={\text{ Team 1's score}}\times {\text{Team 2's resources}}.}

Summary of impact on Team 2's target

If there is a delay before the first innings starts, so that the numbers of overs in the two innings are reduced (but still the same as each other), then D/L will make no change to the target score. This is because both sides will be in the same position of having the same number of overs and 10 wickets available, and they will know this throughout their innings, thus having the same amount of resource available.
Team 2's target score is first calculated once Team 1's innings has finished.
If there were interruption(s) during Team 1's innings, or Team 1's innings was cut short, so the numbers of overs in the two innings are reduced (but still the same as each other), then D/L will adjust Team 2's target score as described above. The adjustment to Team 2's target after interruptions in Team 1's innings is often an increase, implying that Team 2 has more resource available than Team 1 had. Although both teams have 10 wickets and the same (reduced) number of overs available, an increase is fair as, for some of their innings, Team 1 thought they would have more overs available than they actually ended up having. If Team 1 had known that their innings was going to be shorter, they would have batted less conservatively, and scored more runs (at the expense of more wickets). They saved some wicket resource to use up in the overs that ended up being cancelled, which Team 2 does not need to do, therefore Team 2 does have more resource to use in the same number of overs. Therefore, increasing Team 2's target score compensates Team 1 for the denial of some of the overs they thought they would get to bat. The increased target is what D/L thinks Team 1 would have scored in the overs it ended up having, if it had known throughout that the innings would be only as long as it was.

For example, if Team 1 batted for 20 overs before rain came, thinking they would have 50 overs in total, but at the re-start there was only time for Team 2 to bat for 20 overs, it would clearly be unfair to give Team 2 the target that Team 1 achieved, as Team 1 would have batted less conservatively and scored more runs, if they had known they would only have the 20 overs.

If there are interruption(s) to Team 2's innings, either before it starts, during, or it is cut short, then D/L will reduce Team 2's target score from the initial target set at the end of Team 1's innings, in proportion to the reduction in Team 2's resources. If there are multiple interruptions in the second innings, the target will be adjusted downwards each time.
If there are interruptions which both increase and decrease the target score, then the net effect on the target could be either an increase or decrease, depending on which interruptions were bigger.

[Montegriffo]

Mathematical theory

The original D/L model started by assuming that the number of runs that can still be scored (called Z {\displaystyle Z} Z), for a given number of overs remaining (called u {\displaystyle u} u) and wickets lost (called w {\displaystyle w} w), takes the following exponential decay relationship:[10]

Z ( u , w ) = Z 0 ( w ) ( 1 − e − b ( w ) u ) , {\displaystyle Z(u,w)=Z_{0}(w)\left({1-e^{-b(w)u}}\right),} {\displaystyle Z(u,w)=Z_{0}(w)\left({1-e^{-b(w)u}}\right),}

where the constant Z 0 {\displaystyle Z_{0}} Z_{0} is the asymptotic average total score in unlimited overs (under one-day rules), and b {\displaystyle b} b is the exponential decay constant. Both vary with w {\displaystyle w} w (only). The values of these two parameters for each w {\displaystyle w} w from 0 to 9 were estimated from scores from 'hundreds of one-day internationals' and 'extensive research and experimentation', though were not disclosed due to 'commercial confidentiality'.[10]
Scoring potential as a function of wickets and overs.

Finding the value of Z {\displaystyle Z} Z for a particular combination of u {\displaystyle u} u and w {\displaystyle w} w (by putting in u {\displaystyle u} u and the values of these constants for the particular w {\displaystyle w} w), and dividing this by the score achievable at the start of the innings, i.e. finding

P ( u , w ) = Z ( u , w ) Z ( u = 50 , w = 0 ) , {\displaystyle P(u,w)={\frac {Z(u,w)}{Z(u=50,w=0)}},\,} {\displaystyle P(u,w)={\frac {Z(u,w)}{Z(u=50,w=0)}},\,}

gives the proportion of the combined run scoring resources of the innings remaining when u {\displaystyle u} u overs are left and w {\displaystyle w} w wickets are down.[10] These proportions can be plotted in a graph, as shown right, or shown in a single table, as shown below.

This became the Standard Edition. When it was introduced, it was necessary that D/L could be implemented with a single table of resource percentages, as it could not be guaranteed that computers would be present. Therefore this single formula was used giving average resources. This method relies on the assumption that average performance is proportional to the mean, irrespective of the actual score. This was good enough in 95 per cent of matches, but in the 5 per cent of matches with very high scores, the simple approach started to break down.[11] To overcome the problem, an upgraded formula was proposed with an additional parameter whose value depends on the Team 1 innings.[12] This became the Professional Edition.

Examples
Stoppage in first innings
Increased target

In the 4th India – England ODI in the 2008 series, the first innings was interrupted by rain on two occasions, resulting in the match being reduced to 22 overs each. India (batting first) made 166/4. England's target was set by the D/L method at 198 from 22 overs. As England knew they had only 22 overs the expectation is that they will be able to score more runs from those overs than India had from their (interrupted) innings. England made 178/8 from 22 overs, and so the match was listed as "India won by 19 runs (D/L method)".[13]

During the fifth ODI between India and South Africa in January 2011, rain halted play twice during the first innings. The match was reduced to 46 overs each and South Africa scored 250/9. The D/L method was applied which adjusted India's target to 268. As the number of overs was reduced during South Africa's innings, this method takes into account what South Africa are likely to have scored if they had known throughout their innings that it would only be 46 overs long, and so the match was listed as "South Africa won by 33 runs (D/L method)".[14]
Decreased target

On 3 December 2014, Sri Lanka played England and batted first, but play was interrupted when Sri Lanka had scored 6/1 from 2 overs. At the restart both innings were reduced to 35 overs, and Sri Lanka finished on 242/8. England's target was set by D/L at 236 from 35 overs.[15] Although Sri Lanka had less resource remaining to them after the interruption than England would have for their whole innings (about 7% less), they'd used up so much resource before the interruption (2 overs and 1 wicket, about 8%), that the total resource used by Sri Lanka was still slightly more than England would have available, hence the slightly decreased target for England.
Stoppage in second innings

A simple example of the D/L method being applied was the first ODI between India and Pakistan in their 2006 ODI series.[16] India batted first, and were all out for 328. Pakistan, batting second, were 311/7 when bad light stopped play after the 47th over. Pakistan's target, had the match continued, was 18 runs in 18 balls, with three wickets in hand. Considering the overall scoring rate throughout the match, this is a target most teams would be favoured to achieve. And indeed, application of the D/L method resulted in a retrospective target score of 305 (or par score of 304) at the end of the 47th over, with the result therefore officially listed as "Pakistan won by 7 runs (D/L Method)".

The D/L method was used in the group stage match between Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe at the 20/20 World Cup in 2010. Sri Lanka scored 173/7 in 20 overs batting first, and in reply Zimbabwe were 4/0 from 1 over when rain interrupted play. At the restart Zimbabwe's target was reduced to 108 from 12 overs, but rain stopped the match when they had scored 29/1 from 5 overs. The retrospective D/L target from 5 overs was a further reduction to 44, or a par score of 43, and hence Sri Lanka won the match by 14 runs.[17][18]

An example of a D/L tied match was the ODI between England and India on 11 September 2011. This match was frequently interrupted by rain in the final overs, and a ball-by-ball calculation of the Duckworth–Lewis 'par' score played a key role in tactical decisions during those overs. At one point, India were leading under D/L during one rain delay, and would have won if play had not resumed. At a second rain interval, England, who had scored some quick runs (knowing they needed to get ahead in D/L terms) would correspondingly have won if play had not resumed. Play was finally called off with just 7 balls of the match remaining and England's score equal to the Duckworth–Lewis 'par' score, therefore resulting in a tie.

This example does show how crucial (and difficult) the decisions of the umpires can be, in assessing when rain is heavy enough to justify ceasing play. If the umpires of that match had halted play one ball earlier, England would have been ahead on D/L, and so would have won the match. Equally, if play had stopped one ball later, India could have won the match with a dot ball – indicating how finely-tuned D/L calculations can be in such situations.
Stoppages in both innings

During the 2012/13 KFC Big Bash League, D/L was used in the 2nd semi-final played between the Melbourne Stars and the Perth Scorchers. After rain delayed the start of the match, it interrupted Melbourne's innings when they had scored 159/1 off 15.2 overs, and both innings were reduced by 2 overs to 18, and Melbourne finished on 183/2. After a further rain delay reduced Perth's innings to 17 overs, Perth returned to the field to face 13 overs, with a revised target of 139. Perth won the game by 8 wickets with a boundary off the final ball.[19][20]