With a 60 percent chance of the team’s contracts panning out overall, the Sharks rank top five in positive value probability. That’s thanks to incredibly strong deals for Timo Meier and Kevin Labanc on top of a high number of players on positive value deals. Two-thirds of the Sharks contracts fall into that category.

It’s the deals that don’t that bring the Sharks down in a big way (and this doesn’t even include the hideous Martin Jones pact). Marc-Edouard Vlasic made the list of worst contracts (though a bounce-back is very possible with a new partner), but he’s not alone in lengthy overpays for elder players in San Jose. Logan Couture is a great player (and this doesn’t factor for his playoff clutch factor), but $8 million per year is pretty steep for his ages 30-37 seasons. Evander Kane makes a million less for two fewer seasons and is a similarly bad bet. And while Erik Karlsson is still one of the league’s best defencemen, recent injuries make me worry, after seeing how far Drew Doughty fell off last year. The Brent Burns deal at least still looks good though, so it’s not all bad for the team’s long-term commitments.

The Sharks are the highest-ranked team with a negative surplus value and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them drop down this list once the window closes.

lmao

one of the best shut down dmen in the game on a 7m contract is a D- huh



confirms i dont need to pay them to read their shit lol

Vlasic was pretty awful for the first half of the season last year though. Could explain why they think it's a bad contract if they base their data on last year only.

not his greatest performance, but rotating partners after having played with braun and being shut down city to going and playing with EK65 or BB88 and them taking high risks, sure thats going to translate in a dip on paper

Teams will be graded empirically based on the surplus value they bring in per player contract (all dead money counts as one) as well as the average probability those deals will provide positive value. Both are based on a player’s age-adjusted projected win output according to GSVA and the uncertainty in that projection for future seasons, along with the cost of a win on the open market. How much each team spends to obtain those wins will also be graded.

What’s being assessed is the future value of the remainder of each contract, meaning what a player has already done holds no merit here. Future value means age is crucial in terms of grading each contract, with players peaking between the ages of 22-26 and declining afterward.

Based on contract projections for every player in the league provided by Evolving Hockey compared to projected future value measured using GSVA, I estimate that the value of a win on the open market for a forward is $3.27 million*, with replacement level being worth just above $1.1 million. For defence, it’s $3.5 million and $1.75 million respectively.


Surplus value will depend on term, where more seasons give more opportunity to compound value. Positive value probability depends on the certainty of a player’s projection which depends on how much variance there has been in the player’s past numbers. Longer term means that uncertainty increases.

Each contract will be graded based on where their combined surplus value and positive value probability fall on the following percentile scale. All contract and roster data is as of July 15.

For reference, elite forwards are worth around three wins or more, top liners between two-and-three, second liners between one-and-two, and the rest fall below that. Consider the above a salary guideline range for unrestricted free agents while keeping the age curve and cap inflation in mind.

In laymans terms: from reddit

The predict the scoring+defensive output over the next few years of the player. We turn that into the expected additonal wins a team gets because of the player. (if a guy is 28, they use the curve to predict how getting older should affect his win impact over the next 4 years of his 4 year contract).

We compare the players win impact and contract value to the NHL cost average for a win. We know the Cost of A Win on the open market. The cost for a +1 win forward is $3.27 million, with replacement level being worth just above $1.1 million. For defence, it’s $3.5 million and $1.75 million respectively.

So by looking at someones projected stats in the next few years, we can use this "cost of a win" number to estimate the value of their contact. Good contracts will have players who add more wins to the team than they are being paid for. Bad contracts do the opposite.

(Before someone asks, "Why do we use wins and not base our costs off points?". Wins are used as a measuring stick because points are only a rating of someones offensive ability.)

basically vlasic is 32yrs old now and he got 7 more yrs of 7mil caphit when he already started to "decline" so the contract is only going to get worse as he gets older. He was obviously one of the best shutdown D few years ago, last year was a huge decline, but year prior was also meh. Now add 7 more yrs of 7mil cap hit to that, it makes it a D- contract. However, he still has 7.6% bouncing back and playing well to his contract is what it is indicating.

This post was edited by Secksii on Jul 17 2019 01:47pm

how do u find future value with out relying on past performance....

this what the writer wrote about vlasic

While the new Marc-Edouard Vlasic winds up on the best contracts list, the old one winds up on the opposite end. Vlasic was still a reasonably strong defender just two-or-three seasons ago, but 2018-19 was extremely unkind to him. It was like he fell off a statistical cliff.

Last year, Vlasic was the only Sharks defender with a negative expected goals differential, he was second last defensively, and by actual goals only his partner, Justin Braun, was worse. The argument for Vlasic is that he plays difficult minutes, but those were dialled back last season when he struggled. His underlying numbers were fine early on in the season with Karlsson and in the playoffs with Burns, so it’s possible that a new partner (read: not Braun) can rejuvenate his career, but with seven years left there are now legitimate concerns about how well Vlasic will age. You probably also don’t want to be paying that much for a player whose play is dependent on his partner.

A bounce-back should be expected next year, but going up to the level commensurate of his paycheck is a tall order. He’s paid like a number two defender, one who should provide 1.6 wins of value next season and 8.2 in the six seasons after. That’s close to where he was at in 2016-17 and 2017-18, but his age and performance last season makes me skeptical he can reach that point again.

That's odd cause he looked god awful with Karlsson at the start of the year but when he got paired back with Braun he started playing better. EK's the kind of defensemen who can really carry his partner though, so maybe that's why.

i think he looked god awful with karlsson at start of year because it was mainly karlsson fucking up being out of position in dZone and trying to get used to SJS's new system. So i dont think vlasic's individual stats took much of a hit as he was playing fine, and his partner wasn't.

I don't think that was the case. I watched good 15-20 Sharks game early on and it Vlasic was very bad. People on the Sharks board on HF were wondering wtf was wrong with him. It looked like he was mad that the Sharks acquired EK and that he stole his offensive minutes. He made a bunch of turnovers, was caught out of positions a lot and looked like he didn't really give two shits actually