View Single Post
10-25-2012, 06:58 PM
Bleach Clean
Bleach Clean's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,188
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
You asked about the effect time has on Corsi for young players, I found a guy who was able to turn it around significantly after the 200 game mark that Bozak is at now. It stands to reason players are going to get better defensively over time, I admitted that Steen is likely a rare example of that.

Except that I'm not sure Steen is an example of that, as opposed to any young player improving. While there are some that do, others stay the same, or decline. Take Lee Stempniak for example: His best Corsi season occurred when he was 26 in PHX. Since then, lower numbers. He doesn't even give you a steady Corsi On rating with the same team, so environment is not a factor in (non variable).

Specifically, I think your arbitrary threshold analysis is faulty/inconclusive. If we are talking strictly about Corsi On, then Steen posted a positive 2.43 Corsi in his last year in TO. His next two years in STL, he was at -1.94 and -0.87 and respectively. Better environment, worse Corsi... In his last two seasons he's posted impressive 15.20 and 23.69 Corsi seasons. But does this tell us that every young player has this marked improvement? No. Not conclusively.

Nor does it outline a change of environment as the cause, as his 2 seasons post TO were _worse_ than his numbers in TO. Further, Stempniak's numbers fluctuated wildly within the same environment.

I do think there is something to the young guys in TO doing better out of that environment. I don't think they have been well coached while Bozak has been there, and their system play as a team was severely lacking imo. Does that excuse Bozak? No. Could it be a reason to take a chance on him? Maybe.

How much of it is on the player himself then? Grabovski seems to have flourished under the same coaching [By the way, do you have a comment on the disparity between the two as far as Bozak's far worse possession numbers by comparison?). MacArthur broke out in TO. Kulemin cut his teeth there. Gardiner etc...

Would Paul Maurice create a bad environment as well? Because that was Steen's tutor.

I'm not going to knock a guy that's been in the league for two and a half years for not having a long track record.

I'm not knocking him for his track record, I'm questioning his effectiveness to this point. With whatever record he does have.

I'm a little stumped why Steen's 15 goal 20 assist campaign in 06/07 counts as top 6 production while Bozak's 15 goals and 17 assists from last season does not?

Bozak also outpaced that in his rookie season.

Steen 233gp 48 goals 74 assists 122 points .52 p/g

Bozak 192gp 41 goals 65 assists 106 points .55 p/g

That's a comparison of their first 3 seasons. Steen's first was at 21, Bozak 23. Steen had already played 4 years of pro in the SEL, Bozak came from college. Steen didn't score in the SEL, how does he have a "pedigree" that Bozak will never have?

35~ point threshold is the top6 cut off based on the article by Jonathon Willis. So Bozak's 06/07 campaign falls just short.

Pedigree = Done a lot more when younger. In his draft year, Steen posted gaudy numbers in the Swedish junior league (38 points in 23 games), while also being good enough to play the SEL for 26 games. WJC numbers were 8 pts in 8 games... He also posted 2 top6 seasons before Bozak even broke into the league. Yeah I'm not sure why you are contesting pedigree here...?

As to your first 3 seasons argument, age matters here. Steen posted those numbers while younger than Bozak and less physically mature/conditioned. It matters a lot _when_ production occurs, especially at a younger age.

You're taking me task on minute details instead of trying to understand where I'm coming from.

Steen was traded with a young defensemen for a 40 point winger, his value is considerably more now that he's rounded out his game. Players that are already producing and playing well defensively cost a lot more to acquire. Booth was a similar type project. Had he already been producing where we expect him to, he would have cost a lot more. Higgins and Lapierre are similar examples. If you're only looking at guys that are already what you want, instead of guys you can make into what you want, you're always paying through the nose. Kassian is another one, if he didn't have any issues, no way we get him. With a little imagination and good player development you can pay 10 cents on the dollar.

The assumptions here is that Bozak, or any prospective player that is undervalued will rebound here like the others have - I'm not so sure that's a balanced expectation.

You bring up another point, what makes you think you will get Bozak at 10 cents on the dollar? Did he not post 47 points last year? I would think his value has gone up because of that, perhaps even a little inflated. Would that be worth paying for? I dunno.

Bleach Clean is online now