View Single Post
03-28-2006, 10:35 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Originally Posted by dulzhok
I do think there's a similarity, and I'm not changing my opinion, no matter how "jaded" you think it is.

In the example that Spank mentioned above (Hordichuk +6, Karia -6)... The easy thing to do would be assume that "Hey, we have much better chance of being ahead in the this hockey game (winning) if we put Hordihcuk on the ice than we do with Kariya." While statisically that is true (and we're using a big sample size), there is more behind that stat, like the actions of the 11 other people on the ice.

Similary, for these stats, it's easy to say "Hey, we have much better chance of winning the hockey game with Legwand in the lineup, than without him in the lineup." While statistically that is true, there is more behind that stat, like the actions of the 40 other people on the ice.

I'm not trying to debunk the stat totally. As I've said repeatedly, we are better off with Legwand than without, especially with our center woes. But just like +/-, there are flaws in the stat, due to the fact it doens't take into account the actions of the other people on the ice. You assume they are constant, when they are not.

Make fun of it all you want, but it seems pretty logical to me.
There is a similarity, but the majority of the similarity is on such a base level that you could use many other stats and prove the exact same point you are proving now. The crux of your argument is that your are building up our argument to knock it down. You are deliberately creating an exaggeration to inflate our argument to an unsustainable level. It would be the equivalent of me taking your argument and twisting it to the point where I have you saying that Legwand is the worst Predator. And then, like I hero, I come in and knock your groundless argument down.

No one thinks Legwand is an MVP. I have yet to hear that from anyone worth respecting on these boards or any other. What they do think is that he has been given a bad rap and that it turns out, he is quite valuable to the team. You've managed to turn that into something more than it is, which is why you still feel that the Suter comparison works. Let's revisit for the sake of clarity.

Its like saying If everyone was as good as Suter, and had his same +/-, we'd have a team +/- differential of +200!

But what respected poster said as much about Legwand? What you are saying about Suter implies taking a rather large leap. What we are saying about Legwand requires nothing more than common sense. We don't, as you seem to imply with your Suter argument, think Legwand is the best player on the team, and that everyone should be just like him so that we could be undefeated. That is your argument that you have created so that you could better defend your own position.

The bottom line is this: You cannot stand Legwand and refuse to acknowledge any legitimate correlation between wins and his presence. The last three seasons have worked to show that this season is not a fluke. Legwand has missed over 50 games the past three seasons. He's played over 180. That's a solid 235 game sample size. The results? In the 52 games Legwand missed, the Preds are 17-25-4-6. Over an 82 game season, that point total would approximate 69. Legwand has been in the lineup for 183 games. In those games, the Predators are 90-60-20-13. Over an 82 game season, that point total would approximate 95. At what point do you acknowledge it as anything more than mild coincidence? How much more would you like to see or are you so set in your ways that you won't open up to the idea that they are interrelated? And we aren't talking about a perfect direct relationship, but a solid direct relationship whereby a fair part of the team's success can be attributed to the presence of David Legwand.

SmokeyClause is offline