View Single Post
Old
08-22-2012, 01:19 AM
  #380
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Advanced hockey statistics mean something if you take the time to understand them. I thought the same thing too last yr, but after going in depth with the stats, they tell a lot of how players were sheltered and how they were shot/outshot in their minutes relative to competition.

You want to know how a rookie like Nugent-Hopkins was scoring at a torrid pace through his first 30 games? (4th in NHL scoring) He was sheltered a lot by Tom Renney. Hemsky, Horcoff and Hall were the players that received the toughest minutes on the Oilers, hence their decrease in production compared to Nuge and Eberle. They got easier zone starts, were placed against easy competition and were put in a position of success.

Look at our very own Brad Richards. You want to know why his point totals took a hit since joining the Rangers? No, he didn't have a rough season, he was simply put against the best competition on the Rangers. In Dallas, Ribeiro/Eriksson/Morrow played the tougher minutes while Richards got prime time PP minutes, offensive zone starts and played against 2nd pairing d-man and 3rd line players.

Same case with Gaborik. He had an exceptional season, but he got to face easier competition since Callahan's line was doing most of the weightlifting against top competition. This is determined by the stats QUALCOMP.

It's not stupid. You have to use it with context though. I agree that you can't judge a player primary on advanced statistics, but it tells a big story too.
I'm only going to reply to this once because I don't need to get into a back in forth with you:

Advanced hockey stats are meaningless. They have no proof of causation. None. You can't start back tracking and talking about context after your continuous pathetic attempts to slag off Nash. All you talk about with him is 59 points, 59 points, 59 points, as if what he did on that moribund team has anything to do with what he can do on the Rangers. Are you seriously so lacking in imagination that you can't envision how moving from the not just bad, but historically bad rosters of Columbus to the Rangers will affect his game? Go back and look at Inferno's post on their all time roster outside of Nash. There's abysmal and then there's Columbus. It doesn't take much to figure out that Richards and Nash will elevate each others games.

Nash is capable of generating offense on a level that not enough of our forwards could last year. I'll point again to you talking about 08-09 like it proves Nash isn't really that good. Putting up career numbers on the "strongest" roster he's ever had playing for a coach who runs a very similar system to Tortorella is a bad thing? It's proof that he can thrive with a modicum of actual quality surrounding play.

You keep talking about asset management and being smart and Nash's cap hit. This front office has been the essence of intelligent asset management since Gorton and Clark got here. This is a clear upgrade to give us shots at multiple cups. You wanna ***** about the $7.8 million hit? That's what Parise and Suter got, except for a lot more years. For a player of Nash's caliber, you're not going to see lower than a $7 million hit without a cap circumventing contract anyway.

And for all your talk about asset management and Nash's cap hit, you have the gall to turn around and talk about what we gave up making this deal a loss. Dubinsky is a 2nd/3rd line tweener with a $4.2 million cap hit. Anisimov is a 2nd/3rd line tweener about to get a raise. Those contracts don't hurt our cap at all when we're going to have to re-sign Stepan, McDonagh, Hagelin, and Sauer next year? The biggest thing we gave up was Erixon, who was a lefty stuck behind Staal, McDonagh, and Del Zotto (with Skjei coming up behind him). First-line players in their prime don't become available often. We got one without giving up our top young assets. That's a win for the Rangers any way you look at it.

The bottom line is that you can take your stupid numbers and try to tell any story you want. They don't prove that Nash is overrated, just like they don't prove that Richards' problems last year were matchup-based. Richards struggled early primarily because he was adjusting to a more defensively oriented team and less talented linemates. His game just was not there until late in the season and that's clear to anyone who watched him.

All in all, your advanced stat rantings on Nash carry about as much weight as the opinions of someone who would say this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
I wish I was a Flyers fan.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...164487&page=36


Zil is offline   Reply With Quote