214 replies to this topic

[Devils731]

mmm thats not really what i meant, Henrique has 4 goals on 11 shots... Parise has 7 goals on 69 shots... what does that tell you about Elias Clarkson Koivu and Heatley? not THAT much, some players shoot as soon they have an opportunity and some are waiting, its not because they NEED a great opportunity it's simply because its a nature. guys like Ovechkin grab the puck go up the ice and shoot the puck as soon they get in the offensive zone and most of the time its going in the goalies chest for a faceoff... its really not telling much about his linemates who simply watched him go

 

I'm really not sure what your point is.  Is it that Ovechkin generates useless shots and that makes Corsi a bad indicator?  Is it that linemates have little to do with how many shots some players generate so that makes Corsi a bad indicator?

 

I do believe you're incorrect on shooting though.  It's not about players nature, good shooters shoot more, bad shooters shoot less.  It's not nature, it's knowing where they can and can't score from.  Guys who rack up tons of shots are almost all good shooters, there are very few guys who shoot very little but are also good shooters, it's not a coincidence that this is the case.

Edited by Devils731, 19 February 2013 - 04:03 PM.

[SterioDesign]

I'm really not sure what your point is.  Is it that Ovechkin generates useless shots and that makes Corsi a bad indicator?  Is it that linemates have little to do with how many shots some players generate so that makes Corsi a bad indicator?

 

I do believe you're incorrect on shooting though.  It's not about players nature, good shooters shoot more, bad shooters shoot less.  It's not nature, it's knowing where they can and can't score from.  Guys who rack up tons of shots are almost all good shooters, there are very few guys who shoot very little but are also good shooters, it's not a coincidence that this is the case.

 

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.

[Devils731]

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.

 

It could be a bad indicator in some cases, but on a whole I don't believe it is.  It verifies what my eye sees too often on the Devils to be a coincidence, IMO.  Also, over a long period of time you'll get to see how players do when matched with different linemates, so you can see which are the guys bringing other players up and which are the guys bringing players down.

 

No offense to your hockey playing, but in this case we're talking about NHL level players, which is a whole different beast than anyone else.  If we had guys in the NHL who pass up too many good chances because they like to pass and only take amazing chances, then we should see some players consistently putting up 30% shooting percentages while only taking 1 shot a game, but we don't see players doing anything close to that.  On the flip side, if we have players who shoot no matter what, then we should see players who take way too many shots per minute and end up with shooting percentages in the 4-5% range while taking tons of shots, but we don't really see those players existing either.  

 

Sure some guys are shoot first and some guys are pass first, but there are very few people who take bad shots just to increase their number of pucks directed at net.  My eyes tell me those players don't really exist in the NHL and the numbers reflect that.

[squishyx]

What's more of a problem is that this line provides zero offense.  14.1 shots for per 60 minutes on the ice.  That means at an 8% shooting percentage over an 82 game season, Gionta should be on the ice for 17 goals for at 5 on 5.  And remember that counts him, his linemates and defensemen and everything.  This is a line being used for 10 minutes at ES every game.

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.

[SterioDesign]

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.

 

[Devils731]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[Triumph]

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, 19 February 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[squishyx]

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.

[Neb00rs]

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

[PWW]

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

[CarpathianForest]

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.

[njd3b1ink]

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.

[devils102]

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)

[capo]

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.

[Devil Dan 56]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[squishyx]

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.

[SterioDesign]

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, 20 February 2013 - 07:55 AM.

[Triumph]

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.