Triumph Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) Want to know why Jay Pandolfo is one of the best defensive forwards in the game, why Vincent Lecavalier, not Sidney Crosby, was the true MVP of 2006-07, why Zach Parise was better than Jaromir Jagr, or why Scott Gomez was the 238th best player in the league last season? http://www.hockeyanalytics.com Here's a link to the Excel file where the players are rated: http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/PC_07.xls - On the Devils, Colin White is surprisingly low, but probably part of that is his total offensive inability and propensity to take penalties. Patrik Elias was also rated barely above Jamie Langenbrunner. Edited November 6, 2007 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestevens Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I dled the excel, pretty awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestevens Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Paul Martin is #99, which is pretty impressive,and thissystem works because of how he grades everything Parise at 52 is impressive also. Also funny to see zajac is 237 and gomez is 238 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 interesting but again, doesn't work on the same level as baseball sabremetrics where there's thousands of one on one battles (pitcher v. hitter) in a season since hockey is such a team game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 interesting but again, doesn't work on the same level as baseball sabremetrics where there's thousands of one on one battles (pitcher v. hitter) in a season since hockey is such a team game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestevens Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 It is flawed but its good to see in a direct way, if you take it watered down its pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 i guess but its way too inaccurate as a means to compare players and get an appropriate measurement of their relative contribution, especially for players on different teams. Its just a good way to confirm past prejudices and observations (like that dan cloutier sucks) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmadd Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Thanks for the link. Stats are one of the big reasons why I like baseball so much. Even though this isn't quite the same, it's good to see something like this for the NHL. Its just a good way to confirm past prejudices and observations (like that dan cloutier sucks) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 i guess but its way too inaccurate as a means to compare players and get an appropriate measurement of their relative contribution, especially for players on different teams. Its just a good way to confirm past prejudices and observations (like that dan cloutier sucks) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I don't like numbers! I prefer more ambiguous things. </sarcasm> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeymetrics Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 i have to look it over more because i didn't notice what the ratings are totally based on, but offensive statistics have to be put into perspective. Lecavalier's stats might be better because he scored 16 more goals, but he's in a better situation being used to the best of his ability. His best skill is goal scoring and he had 4 excellent playmakers setting him up - St. Louis, Richards, Boyle, and Prospal. The Penguins, meanwhile, should be ashamed they can't find a legit wing to pair with Crosby. That he could manage 84 assists without a pure goal scorer is testament to his jaw dropping, unbelievable talent. No doubt the Penguins have loads of talent, but not the right talent to best make use of Crosby. The worst part is (for fans who want to see him shine as bright as he can) the type of player he needs is extremely plentiful - Ryder, Pominville, Gionta, Kotalik, Lupul, Carter, Dawes, Callahan, Svatos, Tambellini, Jason Blake, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) i have to look it over more because i didn't notice what the ratings are totally based on, but offensive statistics have to be put into perspective. Lecavalier's stats might be better because he scored 16 more goals, but he's in a better situation being used to the best of his ability. His best skill is goal scoring and he had 4 excellent playmakers setting him up - St. Louis, Richards, Boyle, and Prospal. The Penguins, meanwhile, should be ashamed they can't find a legit wing to pair with Crosby. That he could manage 84 assists without a pure goal scorer is testament to his jaw dropping, unbelievable talent. No doubt the Penguins have loads of talent, but not the right talent to best make use of Crosby. The worst part is (for fans who want to see him shine as bright as he can) the type of player he needs is extremely plentiful - Ryder, Pominville, Gionta, Kotalik, Lupul, Carter, Dawes, Callahan, Svatos, Tambellini, Jason Blake, etc. Edited November 8, 2007 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harpua19 Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Nice find some interesting stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 the fact that it says rachunek is anywhere near as good as Malik shows how completely worthless it is. Just kidding. It's interesting and fun to look through. I'd never make a judgement on a player based on it, but I may look out for certain players on my own because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) the fact that it says rachunek is anywhere near as good as Malik shows how completely worthless it is. Just kidding. It's interesting and fun to look through. I'd never make a judgement on a player based on it, but I may look out for certain players on my own because of it. actually I think that's part of its merit. Its problem seems to be overemphasizing disciplined players - Chris Neil receives a minus for last season and Avery is barely a plus as a Ranger. I wonder if it takes into account coincedental minors. I do think that goes overlooked, though - a penalty is not only bad because teams score on PP's a certain % of the time but your team is very unlikely to score during those two minutes. Edited November 8, 2007 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.