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

[Devils731]

Why is Carters and Gios 5 vs 5 corsi's so different?  I havent noticed a large shifting difference

 

I haven't either, but I'm guessing it's a combination of when they're shifting on and off, a winger is more likely to stay on a little longer to be the forechecker during a line change(when positive Corsi events happen) and a center is more likely to stay on a little longer during long shifts in the defensive zone(when negative Corsi events happen) the way the Devils are running things, and Bernier being on the PP and Gionta on the PK messes up who they shift with after the PP and PK end for a minute or two. 

[SterioDesign]

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.

 

the problem now with the Devils is that they have a 4th line playing 3rd line and all those guys are playing too much for what they should bring to an NHL team, a solid 3rd line should make a huge difference but with Zubrus out it's complicated

[Devil Dan 56]

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.

 

I think most of us can agree there. I think the argument is why bench him now? If he is effective, why are we using microstats to say he should be benched when, for the moment, he's contributing? He can always be benched when his luck runs out.

[Devils731]

I think most of us can agree there. I think the argument is why bench him now? If he is effective, why are we using microstats to say he should be benched when, for the moment, he's contributing? He can always be benched when his luck runs out.

 

The problem is if you bench a guy after his luck runs out, you've used him for a bunch of games where he wasn't good and he paid the price for it.  You'll never know his luck has run out ahead of time, because luck is random.  That's one reason to use microstats to verify what you see on the ice, it can let you be more confident and quick in your decision making about who is or isn't performing.

 

It'd be like if we were flipping coins for money, and you won every time we flipped heads and I won every time we flipped tails.  If you won 8 times out of the first 10 flips, and you wanted to leave a winner, would your best bet be to keep playing and try to win bigger or to take your lucky money and walk away?

[Triumph]

the problem now with the Devils is that they have a 4th line playing 3rd line and all those guys are playing too much for what they should bring to an NHL team, a solid 3rd line should make a huge difference but with Zubrus out it's complicated

 

I guess the Devils did get Ponikarovsky since Zubrus went out, but I don't see why Zubrus's injury has anything to do with it.  They've been using the Gionta line the same way all year.

[Devil Dan 56]

The problem is if you bench a guy after his luck runs out, you've used him for a bunch of games where he wasn't good and he paid the price for it.  You'll never know his luck has run out ahead of time, because luck is random.  That's one reason to use microstats to verify what you see on the ice, it can let you be more confident and quick in your decision making about who is or isn't performing.

 

It'd be like if we were flipping coins for money, and you won every time we flipped heads and I won every time we flipped tails.  If you won 8 times out of the first 10 flips, and you wanted to leave a winner, would your best bet be to keep playing and try to win bigger or to take your lucky money and walk away?

 

Understandable reasoning there. But at this moment, how would it be justified benching him when he is still contributing? How could it be said that he is 'killing the team' and 'contributing zero'? I feel he's (currently) balancing out poor microstats by producing goals, assists, chances, etc (at the moment, of course). I don't think anyone feels he will be top 5 in the team in scoring all year. If he is, we are in serious trouble.

[SterioDesign]

Gionta is bringing energy and thats wearing off on other players and you will never find a way to put that in stats, we're missing Zach who was that energy guy and thats why im noticing Gionta so much cause he's always hustling and forechecking you dont see that effort from all of our guys

Edited February 20, 2013 by SterioDesign

[Triumph]

Gionta is bringing energy and thats wearing off on other players and you will never find a way to put that in stats, we're missing Zach who was that energy guy and thats why im noticing Gionta so much cause he's always hustling and forechecking you dont see that effort from all of our guys

 

It has to be possible to find a guy who brings similar energy and is a better overall hockey player.

 

 

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.

 

I'd like to think that if someone responds intelligently to me that I return the courtesy, but I know I'm not batting 1.000 in this regard.

But since I'm a pot stirrer...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.

 

Which there aren't many.  Sterio brings up intangibles, but my thinking is that intangibles are cheap.  Most players at the NHL margins are going to work real hard.  Most players at the NHL margins know not to be a jerk in the locker room.  And the numbers are pretty darn bad - hard to justify it on that alone.

[SterioDesign]

i think you're underestimating intangibles Tri, i suspect you never played high caliber sports and mostly just sat there watching them analyzing them as much as you could.

 

i could be totally wrong but anyone who played in good teams knows damn well that to be successful as a team you don't need simply skills, you need lot's of intangibles and chemistry and stuff that stats can't show, other than maybe those 2 guys have a higher shooting % when they play together than those 2.

Edited February 20, 2013 by SterioDesign

[devlman]

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.

 

Im sure if the original post was presented like it is in bold, instead of the hyperbolic 'gionta is killing the team' or that his line 'isnt even a good fourth line', or that Gionta is 'far from an NHL player' and 'never will be', then more people would not tune out the corsi and other stats presented. You cant expect people to take the objective stats when its poorly interpreted by the presenter.

[squishyx]

The problem is if you bench a guy after his luck runs out, you've used him for a bunch of games where he wasn't good and he paid the price for it.  You'll never know his luck has run out ahead of time, because luck is random.  That's one reason to use microstats to verify what you see on the ice, it can let you be more confident and quick in your decision making about who is or isn't performing.

The problem with luck is too often people just use it to explain data that doesn't fit their model. Bernier and Carter had terrible CORSI numbers last season, but they got "lucky" in the playoffs. If Gio finishes the year with 20 points and a +5 do you think Tri is going to come back and go "Gio proved me wrong, he clearly deserved and earned a spot on this team"? No he is going to say "he got lucky" or dig up some "microstat" that justifies his opinion.

Gio is 22 with little NHL experience; whose to say one way or the other what production levels should be "typical" for him. At a minimum though it means we shouldn't bench the guy who is 5th in scoring on the team just because a single statisitic suggests it.

[squishyx]

Im sure if the original post was presented like it is in bold, instead of the hyperbolic 'gionta is killing the team' or that his line 'isnt even a good fourth line', or that Gionta is 'far from an NHL player' and 'never will be', then more people would not tune out the corsi and other stats presented. You cant expect people to take the objective stats when its poorly interpreted by the presenter.

Well said.

[Triumph]

The problem with luck is too often people just use it to explain data that doesn't fit their model. Bernier and Carter had terrible CORSI numbers last season, but they got "lucky" in the playoffs. If Gio finishes the year with 20 points and a +5 do you think Tri is going to come back and go "Gio proved me wrong, he clearly deserved and earned a spot on this team"? No he is going to say "he got lucky" or dig up some "microstat" that justifies his opinion.

Gio is 22 with little NHL experience; whose to say one way or the other what production levels should be "typical" for him. At a minimum though it means we shouldn't bench the guy who is 5th in scoring on the team just because a single statisitic suggests it.

 

Stephen Gionta is 29 years old, he turns 30 is October.  If he were 22, I would not be so certain in my opinion about him.

[squishyx]

Stephen Gionta is 29 years old, he turns 30 is October.  If he were 22, I would not be so certain in my opinion about him.

You are right, I didn't mean to write that. Still though, his NHL experience his minimal which is what I was trying to get at.

[SterioDesign]

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.

 

This is spot on for me Colorady ( lol ) anything I posted in this whole discussion is not cause i like Gionta or anything. it's based on the fact that i'm absolutely fed up with his way of saying things, not to the point of blocking Tri of course, he's a good poster. But now every time he's shoving shooting % in a discussion to make it looks smart it's getting under my skin cause it sounds so pretentious and often it's not taking into account anything else.

 

I mean when anyone on this forum would say something like "Henrique has been playing pretty well with Zajac lately"... Tri would likely go and make a statement in opposition saying something like..."Henrique shooting % has been down 2.3% since playing with Zajac and long run Deboer will have to split them up cause they'll run Kovy to the ground since he was maintaining a constant % and bla bla bla bla bla" or something similar. I mean... to me now it always sounds like someone trying to look smarter than anyone and its ticking me off every time.

[Devils Pride 26]

This thread is so simple and is being so overblown. The premise is that Gionta and the fourth line putting up numbers is largely luck and that we have to be careful not to overuse them because that luck is going to run out very soon. That premise is undeniably true.

 

Corsi is not some detached stat line made up in a lab by a professor. It accounts for shooting attempts. You need to shoot the puck to score. It is generally better to out shoot rather than be out shot.

[Neb00rs]

Stephen Gionta has done everything asked of him and well beyond, all for a bargain basement price. I find no reason to complain about him and nor will I. What we see is what we get - to defy obvious production and not give Gionta due credit.is just plain wrong. As a matter of fact - Triumph is not in the minority - two years ago he would have been one of the myriad hockey "experts," who wrote off, "career AHLer Stephen Gionta...I for one am glad Stephen Gionta didn't listen then and I know he wouldn't listen now either.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Neb00rs

[capo]

This thread is so simple and is being so overblown. The premise is that Gionta and the fourth line putting up numbers is largely luck and that we have to be careful not to overuse them because that luck is going to run out very soon. That premise is undeniably true.

 

Corsi is not some detached stat line made up in a lab by a professor. It accounts for shooting attempts. You need to shoot the puck to score. It is generally better to out shoot rather than be out shot.

 

We definitely can't  continue to see them putting up numbers against unfavorable matchups.  However, they should be able to kick the sh!t out of opposing teams 4th lines on a nightly basis.  At this stage in the season and with all the holes in the lineup you can't squarely match up against other teams lines.  Sometimes you just have to roll them.  I'm not worried about over playing these guys.  It's not going to lead to the Devils missing the playoffs.  What I am worried about is giving Kovy 26 mins a game.  Especially since he's been playing hockey since the start of the KHL season.  What's going to happen is he's going to burn out like he did last year.  If only advanced stats could predict burnout.  Who gives a sh!t if we burn out Gionta.

[thefiestygoat]

This thread is so simple and is being so overblown. The premise is that Gionta and the fourth line putting up numbers is largely luck and that we have to be careful not to overuse them because that luck is going to run out very soon. That premise is undeniably true.

 

Corsi is not some detached stat line made up in a lab by a professor. It accounts for shooting attempts. You need to shoot the puck to score. It is generally better to out shoot rather than be out shot.

Agreed, though I will say there have been some solid posts back and forth.

 

In baseball I'm all about using sabremetrics since the game has so many situations that repeat themselves over and over. In NHL hockey I like to balance microstats and my own observations since it is a much more fluid, random game about 50/50. With that said, I don't see how Gionta continues to be this lucky and put up points at the rate he has. I love his story and his work ethic, but years of watching NHL hockey and the microstats make me skeptical it will last.

[Derlique]

thefiestygoat, on 20 Feb 2013 - 19:24, said:

Agreed, though I will say there have been some solid posts back and forth.

In baseball I'm all about using sabremetrics since the game has so many situations that repeat themselves over and over. In NHL hockey I like to balance microstats and my own observations since it is a much more fluid, random game about 50/50. With that said, I don't see how Gionta continues to be this lucky and put up points at the rate he has. I love his story and his work ethic, but years of watching NHL hockey and the microstats make me skeptical it will last.

Agreed with pretty much everything you said, Feisty. Advanced stats are helpful because they give you hard, concrete data. To me, Gionta just doesn't pass the eye test. He's frequently scrambling around in the defensive zone and a poor penalty killer. On the PK, teams literally pass around the guy because he uses a smaller stick and doesn't have the range most players have. I blame Deboer for matching him against top players frequently and for playing him so often. To me, he should play roughly 8 mins ES with no special teams time. If Deboer uses him in strictly a 4th line role, he won't kill the team (which will inevitably happen because he has gotten extremely lucky thus far). I realize Coach hasn't had a real 3rd line, but some of his choices could be better. But thats for another thread Edited February 21, 2013 by SMantzas

[EdgeControl]

Kovalchuk is no fenwick star himself, and possibly his shifting on with gio is exacerbating the problem. both of them together in the D zone is a bit scary!

Lucky or not, goal differential will trump shot differences in the short term. so until Gio's "GOAL HART+" starts to slip significantly he's staying on the line!  JJ should take note of that!  with the limited scoring this year you cant bench a guy for being lucky. now lets see how carters injury effects the mojo!

[mrthemike]

The numbers are nice and show a story. A comparison to equal players / lines would be nice. 

[squishyx]

This thread is so simple and is being so overblown. The premise is that Gionta and the fourth line putting up numbers is largely luck and that we have to be careful not to overuse them because that luck is going to run out very soon. That premise is undeniably true.

 

Corsi is not some detached stat line made up in a lab by a professor. It accounts for shooting attempts. You need to shoot the puck to score. It is generally better to out shoot rather than be out shot.

That's not really the premise. It was to "bench Gionta" because he is "killing this team". A more reasonable premise probably would have seen this thread die out days ago because everyone more or less agrees that Gio is getting lucky in some degree, but wildly disagree on whether or not it makes sense to continue to play him and ride whatever luck he has left.

Corsi is fine, the stats are not the problem here, it's the weight being attached to it. Making a big decision based on any sole stat is foolish, as Gio showed last game.

[thefiestygoat]

Not to start a huge fight or anything but for those of us who like Behind the Net I thought this was interesting:

 

Talk about how lucky Stephen Gionta has been at 5v5: 53.7 Off Zone Start% (2nd highest NJ FWD's w/ 15+ GP) and a 1061 PDO (highest amongst those FWD's).

Despite the favorable zone start % and the luck (high PDO), Gionta has a negative Corsi Rel (-14.0, 2nd lowest amongst NJ FWD's w/ 15+ GP) and the lowest Corsi On (-7.68) amongst those FWD's.

[Pepperkorn]

Clearly Corsis aren't doin' it

 

I'll say again - data sets in hockey are too small with too many inconsistencies.

 

Moneyball = one dude ~4 times a game coming up to bat.

 

Moneypuck = one dude getting inconsistent minutes, inconsistent shots, inconsistent linemates, inconsistent player match-ups.

Not really doable is it?

 

I'm not saying don't have the conversation - it's amusing & interesting -- but it's not reliable. 

It makes no sense to bench guys based on unproven statistical analysis, particularly when a statistician by trade would NEVER have you doing so. Now I've often said I was raised by an actuarial scientist on this board - thus I've never really broached the subject - it's kind of ridiculous to take it too seriously.  But what the heck right?  Why not start bringing the real field of risk analysis into the equation here, right?