• Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Triumph

How success kills good teams (and why S. Gionta needs benching)

215 posts in this topic

Zero offense. Could you exaggerate just a little more? Literally a day after the guy who you recommending benching scores a goal you have the hubris to suggest he and his 7 points after 16 games is equivalent to 0.

Anyway, you know whats interesting? At the end of last year do you know who was 27th and 28th out of 30 for CORSI on our team? Bernier and Carter. Do you know who was 25th out of 26th for LA? Mike Richards who went on to score 15pts in 20 games. But I bet if you were the hypothetical coach you would have looked at that data and benched them (well not Richards, you aren't insane, just stubborn).

Yes I am cherry picking examples, not because I think the stat is flawed but because it illustrates that all stats can be misleading. Hockey is more then numbers on a sheet, and while Gionta scoring the next game after you made this thread is just a coincidence, you think you would lay off him a bit instead of doubling down on your argument.

 

 

Mike Richards Corsi relative to his quality of competition was 5th best on LA though, so it seems he was drawing all the tough matchups and doing ok, just to throw out another perspective on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero offense. Could you exaggerate just a little more? Literally a day after the guy who you recommending benching scores a goal you have the hubris to suggest he and his 7 points after 16 games is equivalent to 0.

Anyway, you know whats interesting? At the end of last year do you know who was 27th and 28th out of 30 for CORSI on our team? Bernier and Carter. Do you know who was 25th out of 26th for LA? Mike Richards who went on to score 15pts in 20 games. But I bet if you were the hypothetical coach you would have looked at that data and benched them (well not Richards, you aren't insane, just stubborn).

Yes I am cherry picking examples, not because I think the stat is flawed but because it illustrates that all stats can be misleading. Hockey is more then numbers on a sheet, and while Gionta scoring the next game after you made this thread is just a coincidence, you think you would lay off him a bit instead of doubling down on your argument.

 

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, come back when you're not propping up strawmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes both of your statement is what i meant. its a bad indicator sometimes. 

 

And i'm sure i'm correct since i'm like that when i'm playing so i know. Some players have a pass first mentality and even though we KNOW we should shoot more, we don't. Even knowing we have a greater chance to put it in than the other guy you still want to pass. It's a nature i can assure you i know a bunch of guys like that.

 

Luckily, hockeyanalysis's site is quite good and has come around with 5 year shooting percentages.  I decided to sort for forwards with more than 3000 minutes at even strength over the five full 'Corsi' seasons from 2007-08 to 2011-12.  I don't know if this includes empty net goals or not, unfortunately - I guess I could see if it does - for now I'll assume it doesn't.  Of the 249 forwards who played over 3000 5 on 5 minutes between those years, 146 have between a 7.0% and 9.0% shooting percentage while on the ice.  226 are between 6% and 10%.  It is true that great passers like Alex Tanguay and Sidney Crosby are at the top of the list while plugs like Shawn Thornton and Craig Adams are at the bottom, but that's not exactly a point in your favor, because if I had to guess which box Gionta falls in, given his college and AHL results, it's the plugs box.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, come back when you're not propping up strawmen.

Coming from the guy who wanted to bench our only goal scorer yesterday... have to say the evidence suggest the opposite. Anyway, we'll let Gio get the final word comes seasons end on just how qualified he is to be in the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gionta needs to be benched? Ridiculous. Triumph's post is one of the most myopic I've ever seen on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love these reverse jinx threads. Keep up the great work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come to the conclusion that we should pack it in, shut the lights off and call it a day on the season. Maybe next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to post in this thread but it's still going on so I guess I will. I think I fall in the middle of these two arguments. No I don't think gionta should be benched or sent down, but I also don't think gionta is all that great. I think he's a serviceable 4th liner that might be above average for a 4th liner but is NOT a 3rd liner at all.

The thing I like the most about Gio is the intangibles he brings that pump up the team (hustle, hits, and forechecking.) however I agree he isn't that good defensively. He could be way more effective if he wasn't stuck in his own zone so much.

With that said though I want Gio on this team. That line compared to other 4th lines is much more effective. Key is getting the depth to bump them down to the 4th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of where you fall in this argument... Its not good that Gionta is 5th in scoring on our team (4th among forwards and tied overall with Zidlicky)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above the level of Gionta, Andy Ebbet just got waived. Great 4th liner and Pker.  I watched this guy make his pro debut in Binghamton.  He was a healthy scratch for like the first 5 games in the year and when he finally got in all he did was put up points and kill penalites and bust his ass all over the ice.  I admire this guy.  A bit undersized but a lot of heart.  A lot like Gio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, come back when you're not propping up strawmen.

 

And staring at percentages makes you an expert? He's pointing out what he sees on the ice and that advanced stats, while useful,   are not the be-all and end-all of a sport as random as hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And staring at percentages makes you an expert? He's pointing out what he sees on the ice and that advanced stats, while useful,   are not the be-all and end-all of a sport as random as hockey.

 

He said nothing about what happens on the ice.  He used a terrible argument that's not even worth addressing.  Nor did I ever say that advanced stats were the end-all and be-all, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said nothing about what happens on the ice.  He used a terrible argument that's not even worth addressing.  Nor did I ever say that advanced stats were the end-all and be-all, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Reality is apparently a "terrible" argument now. I guess that makes sense in a universe where a line that puts up 17 points in 16 games is equivalent to zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said nothing about what happens on the ice.  He used a terrible argument that's not even worth addressing.  Nor did I ever say that advanced stats were the end-all and be-all, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

 

to be honest you're REALLY coming across as really arrogant thinking you're smarter than others cause you're using "advance stats". throwing % here and there thinking it's like chinese to some people here and that you need some kind of high end IQ to understand it lol it's really not complicated anyone can go on those website and look at them. They are just misleading and thats why not everyone are using them, not because it's too underground or not known.

 

im sorry to sound like a jerk but it's totally true.

 

You're throwing numbers around and when it doesnt aligned with what you're saying youre blaming "luck" to justify it. 

Edited by SterioDesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be honest you're REALLY coming across as really arrogant thinking you're smarter than others cause you're using "advance stats". throwing % here and there thinking it's like chinese to some people here and that you need some kind of high end IQ to understand it lol it's really not complicated anyone can go on those website and look at them. They are just misleading and thats why not everyone are using them, not because it's too underground or not known.

 

I have said a huge number of times on here that 'advanced stats' (which I've mostly stopped calling them - I like microstats better) are as simple as can be.  If it were easier to count them, and if the NHL had been counting them on its own, people would be talking about them a lot more.  So everyone gets that aspect, I'm sure.  I agree that not everyone can think stochastically, which you have to be able to do to understand how microstats work. You have to think goals are in essence random events that come from shots.  A lot of people don't believe that, and that's where the difference is.  They understand how the stat is generated, but they don't believe its meaning.  And a lot of times, it doesn't seem like a goal is a random event, so that's why people deny it - if a player at all points of a particular play has agency, let's say at one point he picks up the puck at his own blueline, pushes it past a defender, comes in alone on the goalie, dekes him, and scores, how can that be random?  I guess I'll leave it to you to explain to me why I would think that at some level that's 'random'.

 

squishyx can point out 100 different examples that he thinks disprove my argument, but I'm not going to sit here and deny all of them.  Either come up with several examples that form a larger pattern, or at least be intellectually honest.  He's done neither thing.

 

 

You're throwing numbers around and when it doesnt aligned with what you're saying youre blaming "luck" to justify it.

 

Unfortunately we don't have the results of Monday's game, but Stephen Gionta + teammates have a 16.67% shooting percentage while on the ice and that is before scoring on Monday - we know he at the very least maintained that percentage, but it probably went up.  That's unsustainable.  I just showed you that from 2007 to 2012, the highest shooting percentage was Sidney Crosby's at 11.something.  It's great that he and his linemates are scoring, but it cannot last like this.  Either his and his linemates shooting rate will have to increase, or the goals they score will decrease.  It's inevitable.  You can deny it, but it's going to happen.  It's great that Gionta has contributed so much so far, but expecting him to continue to contribute anything close is denying reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said a huge number of times on here that 'advanced stats' (which I've mostly stopped calling them - I like microstats better) are as simple as can be.  If it were easier to count them, and if the NHL had been counting them on its own, people would be talking about them a lot more.  So everyone gets that aspect, I'm sure.  I agree that not everyone can think stochastically, which you have to be able to do to understand how microstats work. You have to think goals are in essence random events that come from shots.  A lot of people don't believe that, and that's where the difference is.  They understand how the stat is generated, but they don't believe its meaning.  And a lot of times, it doesn't seem like a goal is a random event, so that's why people deny it - if a player at all points of a particular play has agency, let's say at one point he picks up the puck at his own blueline, pushes it past a defender, comes in alone on the goalie, dekes him, and scores, how can that be random?  I guess I'll leave it to you to explain to me why I would think that at some level that's 'random'.

 

squishyx can point out 100 different examples that he thinks disprove my argument, but I'm not going to sit here and deny all of them.  Either come up with several examples that form a larger pattern, or at least be intellectually honest.  He's done neither thing.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately we don't have the results of Monday's game, but Stephen Gionta + teammates have a 16.67% shooting percentage while on the ice and that is before scoring on Monday - we know he at the very least maintained that percentage, but it probably went up.  That's unsustainable.  I just showed you that from 2007 to 2012, the highest shooting percentage was Sidney Crosby's at 11.something.  It's great that he and his linemates are scoring, but it cannot last like this.  Either his and his linemates shooting rate will have to increase, or the goals they score will decrease.  It's inevitable.  You can deny it, but it's going to happen.  It's great that Gionta has contributed so much so far, but expecting him to continue to contribute anything close is denying reality.

 

My point is that an hockey game is so random and can go in so many different way that every game has its own story.

 

What are you talking about we don't have the results? WE SAW THE GAME! he SCORED and got a few good chances with a good forecheck and doing what they asked him to do. Finished 2 to 1 for Ottawa, why do you need your Shooting % numbers to make any kind of statement to justify anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that an hockey game is so random and can go in so many different way that every game has its own story.

 

Sure.  I agree.  Like I said, I don't place a high value in single-game Corsi.  'He had a bad Corsi therefore he had a bad game' is a dumb argument.  But it's when you start adding games together that a larger story emerges.

 

 

 

What are you talking about we don't have the results? WE SAW THE GAME! he SCORED and got a few good chances with a good forecheck and doing what they asked him to do. Finished 2 to 1 for Ottawa, why do you need your Shooting % numbers to make any kind of statement to justify anything?

 

I wanted the numbers I was about to use to be precise.  'We saw the game' is not much of an argument.   I also doubt they got a few good chances, which is why 'We saw the game' isn't a very good argument - sometimes people see a different game.  That's where the numbers come in.  Over enough games, the numbers don't lie (much).

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tri,

I know we dont perfectly see eye to eye on this, but we agree much more than you and a lot of other members do. I dont think that Corsi is a substitute for watching the game, but I also think it is absolutely a valid tool for gathering long term data.

With that being said, if you were paid to be a scout at any level, there's no way you would base your decisions on players based on their Corsi...even over an entire season. Again, I'm not saying it's "BS", useless, etc, but I do believe that it's foolish to judge a player's "overall effectiveness" on a stat. I've played hockey most of my 26 year life, and I've been a coach since graduating college. I would never attempt to explain to you who my best players are by their +/-, corsi, fenwick, etc. That's just the way it is.

But mostly, I'm confused why so many people on this board think assessing players has to be one way or the other. If we can agree that neither stats nor watching the game can tell a player's story in its entirety, why not adopt both as valid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tri,

I know we dont perfectly see eye to eye on this, but we agree much more than you and a lot of other members do. I dont think that Corsi is a substitute for watching the game, but I also think it is absolutely a valid tool for gathering long term data.

With that being said, if you were paid to be a scout at any level, there's no way you would base your decisions on players based on their Corsi...even over an entire season. Again, I'm not saying it's "BS", useless, etc, but I do believe that it's foolish to judge a player's "overall effectiveness" on a stat. I've played hockey most of my 26 year life, and I've been a coach since graduating college. I would never attempt to explain to you who my best players are by their +/-, corsi, fenwick, etc. That's just the way it is.

But mostly, I'm confused why so many people on this board think assessing players has to be one way or the other. If we can agree that neither stats nor watching the game can tell a player's story in its entirety, why not adopt both as valid?

 

Re:  the last line of your post, I would agree...I think it takes a little bit of everything to get a true picture.  And even then, as we've seen, there will still be many differing opinions on a player's performance.   

 

Tri always brings some interesting stat angles to the table, especially since most hockey fans still aren't that aware of them.  Tri's problem has always been bedside manners when it comes to presentation...he can be arrogant, condescending, and almost robotic at times, and it has a way of getting under some people's skin (admittedly Tri has ticked me off more than once).  I think his demeanor has turned off some fans' to the Fenwicks and Corsis and other microstats he brings to the board.  But I've also defended his viewpoints when I've agreed with them, and I don't think he's far off on Gio to this point...yeah, the numbers for him look pretty good, but beyond the obvious numbers, there's solid reasons to wonder if he can possibly keep this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are overreacting a bit here. The CGBG line is playing against the top line of the other team, and then our 1st and 2nd lines are playing against weaker lines. In this case, i wold expect them to get more point production, which in kovy's, clarkson's and elias's case is working, but for Zajac and frankly Henrique the past few games it isn't.  They need to pick up their play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that being said, if you were paid to be a scout at any level, there's no way you would base your decisions on players based on their Corsi...even over an entire season.

 

You're absolutely right, I wouldn't.  And the lower in levels one goes, the less relevance I think Corsi and its ilk have.  But I've never said that Corsi is the end-all anyway, even in the NHL.  Here's how I evaluate players, in general:

 

Hopefully, I've seen the player and remember something about him - his general style of play.  I'll go to behindthenet and get his 'player card' - this will tell me his Corsi, Zone Start, Quality of Competition, and Quality of Teammates.  I have undefined benchmarks for these things, but basically to try to judge if a player's keeping his head above water, I'll see if he's starting more often in the defensive or offensive zone, who he's playing with, who he's playing against, and where his Corsi ends up, both absolutely and relative to his teammates.  Then I'll pop on over to hockeyanalysis to see WoWYs - that's with or without you - to see - do players do better with him or without him?  Now there's a lot of issues that come in with this measure - for an example, Petr Sykora looks better than people like Elias and Zubrus, but that's in part because Sykora was pulled off late in games last year when the Devils had a lead.  This will make his Fenwick/Corsi look better by comparison because teams are ahead tend to be outshot.  

 

 

Again, I'm not saying it's "BS", useless, etc, but I do believe that it's foolish to judge a player's "overall effectiveness" on a stat.

 

Again, I wouldn't do that either - I do not say 'Player A has a better Corsi/Fenwick than Player B, therefore he is better'.  Also these things leave out special teams, which can be awfully important (and the stats community really hasn't figured out how to measure special teams at the individual level).  But I will definitely think if a player is being driven backwards significantly, and isn't being started a ton in the defensive zone, isn't playing with overly rotten teammates, and isn't being sent out against the other team's best a huge amount, that it's unlikely he's a good NHLer or a guy I'd want to have on my team.

 

 

I've played hockey most of my 26 year life, and I've been a coach since graduating college. I would never attempt to explain to you who my best players are by their +/-, corsi, fenwick, etc. That's just the way it is.

 

I wouldn't do that either - as I said above, the lower level you go, the less Fenwick matters, and here's why:

 

A) The effectiveness of Fenwick as a measure depends on the idea that 'shot quality' doesn't exist at the NHL level - that is to say that NHL defenses are so good that basically how many shots you give up is what counts.  No one's found an argument for shot quality existing in a significant way at the NHL level.   But at lower levels, I imagine it exists more and more - as more defensive errors result in odd-man rushes and breakaways and so forth, shot quality becomes a bigger deal.

 

B) The effectiveness of this stat also to a degree assumes that all goalies are equal, something which is less likely to be the case as the gap between talent widens, as it would in lower leagues.

 

C) We know score effects - that teams who lead tend to be outshot, whereas teams who trail tend to outshoot - exist in the NHL, but that's because NHL teams are bunched together tightly in terms of competition.  But in lower levels, where the gaps tend to be wider, we can't assume score effects still hold true.  Plus as talent gaps widen, scores widen, and it's hard to generate anything meaningful territorial stat wise in blowouts.  They just don't happen often in the NHL.

 

The Rangers just told the media they use 'Nielson Numbers' - that's where a player gets a plus for a positive play and a negative for a negative play - I imagine if I coached, I'd try to use something like this to guide me somewhat, but the eyes tell a lot more at lower level hockey.   This would just be a way of codifying what the eyes are seeing.

 

and if I coached hockey, you would never hear me talk about Fenwick or Corsi to a player.  There are tools for evaluating players which have no relevance in the actual on-field/ice production.  WAR in baseball measures how many wins a particular player contributes over a 'replacement player' - it's way better at evaluating MLB players than any scout could possibly be.  It's not perfect, but it beats humans.  Still, it would be absurd for a manager to talk about increasing a player's WAR - WAR is made up of many things, hitting, fielding, baserunning, etc. - he should be trying to improve at these individual elements.  So too with Fenwick/Corsi - a player shouldn't be looking to, absent other forces, direct more pucks at the opponent's net and have fewer directed at their own net.  They should be better at back-checking, at stick-checking, at staying in position, at breaking the puck out of the zone, at passing the puck prudently versus shooting it, and so forth.  Fenwick and Corsi just take all of this into account, because what matters in the end is having the puck and putting it on the opponent's net - my argument in here has been that Stephen Gionta hasn't been doing that enough.

 

But mostly, I'm confused why so many people on this board think assessing players has to be one way or the other. If we can agree that neither stats nor watching the game can tell a player's story in its entirety, why not adopt both as valid?

 

I don't think it has to be one way or another.  I don't reject the eyes completely.  But I let my eyes inform the stats and the stats inform my eyes.  If I see a guy's struggling numbers-wise, I try to look for why.  Ditto if I think a guy is sucking but the numbers are telling me he isn't.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that, you've responded intelligently to many of the points I've made without being "arrogant" or "robotic". There can be peace in the Forum again.

(BTW, that's me defending Triumph for the record)

But since I'm a pot stirrer...

Again, I wouldn't do that either - I do not say 'Player A has a better Corsi/Fenwick than Player B, therefore he is better'.  Also these things leave out special teams, which can be awfully important (and the stats community really hasn't figured out how to measure special teams at the individual level).  But I will definitely think if a player is being driven backwards significantly, and isn't being started a ton in the defensive zone, isn't playing with overly rotten teammates, and isn't being sent out against the other team's best a huge amount, that it's unlikely he's a good NHLer or a guy I'd want to have on my team.

Just for the record, your point in your first post was to educate everyone on how badly Gio has been by looking at team shot % @ even strength. Even though you admit it has been against good competition, you've stated your preference that he be benched because of how bad the numbers are. No real mention of "all the other things he does"...if there are any in your opinion. Edited by NLinfante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with all of that being said can we all agree now that singling out ONE GUY of a bottom line playing near 10 minutes a game is KILLING the team not based on his production or what he brings but based on his projected shooting %  long term is pretty foolish? especially when he has been matched to the top line really often

 

i'd like to get a vote on that.

Edited by SterioDesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with all of that being said can we all agree now that singling out ONE GUY of a bottom line playing near 10 minutes a game is KILLING the team not based on his production or what he brings but based on his projected shooting %  long term is pretty foolish?

 

i'd like to get a vote on that.

I will go half way with you. If there is a problem with the Devils, I don't believe it falls solely on the shoulders of Gio. I dont believe he is "KILLING" us at all. However, I do believe that his shooting % will decrease over time because he is not a premier NHL player. If I'm wrong, that's great because any scoring of his helps the team I root for passionately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0