View Single Post
Old
06-18-2011, 08:33 PM
  #111
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Wiz, much as I like him and like players of his type, is not going to be as good as Markov and is never going to be.
I don't think he'll be as good as Larry Robinson either, but right now I'd take Wiz over Larry wouldn't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
But I think you underestimate Markov. He is in the Pronger class of #1 D-men.
No. He's great offensively but he's not nearly as complete as Pronger is. Pronger didn't get to the finals by chance and the teams he played on don't get there without him. He's not perfect either but he's much more complete than Markov is and has had a much better career.

Again, you completely avoided my questions above about size... Yes, size and grit does matter in the game of hockey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Spacek gets a bad rap that he doesn't really deserve.
"Spacek shoots... and misses the net". That's pretty much all I hear when he's on the ice. Not sure if shooting accuracy and putting it on the net affects Corsi but without looking at my calculator, I'd say Spacek sucks.

Whenever that guy is on the ice, I know bad things are going to happen and he's totally expendable as far as I'm concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Koivu was not as good as Markov. I think #1 D-men like Markov are more impactful than top forwards unless you get to the Crosby level. A guy like Markov is the kind of D-men teams trade the farm to get, and only noncompetitive teams give them away if they can help it. The Habs are not noncompetitive.
Some cup winners are stronger up front, some are stronger at the blueline and some are led by goalies. Almost all of them are well balanced teams that skew one way or another. If Saku Koivu is your best forward, you aren't going to win a cup unless maybe if you have Chris Chelios and Patrick Roy on the backend and even then it's a big stretch to think that you'll be able to pull it off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The point of Gomez is not him personally scoring goals.
I don't see why not. If he's sitting there collecting secondary assists off a sniper like Cammy, then those points don't mean much. And his lack of goalscoring ability strongly contributed to the pathetic season he's coming off of.

I know, you don't want me to look at other stats because you don't think they count...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Barring exceptional circumstances (Plekanec lost for the season, that sort of thing), and of course assuming the team maintains its current level of puck possession (which I expect them to) and has a strong PP again (which I also expect them to)... I think we can reasonably expect the Habs to be top-third in offense, which would mean top-10. They certainly generated enough scoring chances this year that they should have been there.

Who knows, they may even get lucky and end up with a fluke 'up' year.
What do you think they'll do? And "if healthy" is a loaded term. If you're assuming for example that Markov is healthy, I'd say you're providing a built in excuse for yourself when this doesn't happen.

I think they'll be at best middle of the pack if everything goes well. I think it's far more likely to see them at 20th or below in 5 on 5 scoring again this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Gomez should normally get his 40ish points at even strength, plus whatever he gets on the power play. Call it in the 55-60 range, depending on how much PP time the Habs get and whether he ends up on the first wave or not. Frankly, I couldn't care less about what he gets individually on the PP so long as the team as a whole is effective there. Gomez is there as a catalyst for 5-on-5 play.
I thought you said you were expecting 70 points out of him. I think he'll be at the 55 point level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
No, and that would be silly. The stat is intended to measure puck possession; if you counted it in seconds, you wouldn't give a 10-second bonus for a goal for and a 10-second penalty for a goal against, now, would you?
Why would it be silly?

Why not factor in the results of the shots taken? Shouldn't the amount of times the puck goes in the net be useful here? Again, you can still have Corsi, just create a new category that has the same formula but actually includes goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
And what would "they" be trying to measure by doing that?
Perhaps it would provide a more accurate representation of how effective a player actually is. I'm no statistician though and that's why I asked the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
There are holistic stats that try to measure the overall contribution of players -- look up GVT for an example, or anything by Alan Ryder. The problem is that they avowedly do not distinguish between luck and skill, and also do not factor in context such as ice time, strength of competition, or strength of teammates.
All the more reason to create a new stat that does take this into account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The problem with including goals-for and goals-against in calculations is the relative rarity of goals, and the importance of other factors (notably, goaltending) in them.
I think if you include goals, you get a more accurate picture of how effective a player actually is. As you say, it may vary year to year but my guess is that you'll have the same players coming out on top most of the time.

I suspect that more stats will be developed by the stat geeks in the coming years and those stats will provide more accurate depictions of who the best players are. Nothing I've seen yet though convinces me that these stats are anywhere near as accurate as Bill James has developed for baseball and I think a big reason for this is that hockey is much, much harder to quantify on Microsoft Excel.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote