View Single Post
12-04-2012, 01:39 PM
Registered User
BraveCanadian's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,886
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Yeah, I know Lidstrom gets penalized again, which is why I didn't make that calculation.
It is already built into the divisor that you used.

On your second point:

A player can be less responsible for the strength of the specials teams, but can still benefit statistically from it.

Player A scores 100 points on the PP. His team gets 200. That is 50%.
Player B scores 75 points on the PP. His team gets 125. That is 60%.

Player A had a smaller contribution to his teams powerplay, but got more absolute PP points anyways. Player A is less responsible for the "strength" of his team's powerplay than player B. This is of course making the assumption that the contribution can be linearly followed, even though diminishing gains definitely exists.
Player A may have been just as good or even better on the powerplay than Player B.

It just depends on whether it was a second unit scoring the majority of the other goals or other players on his unit.

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.

Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.

In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.

I thought Habs fans were a lot more reasonable using the reverse argument - Andre Markov was arguably the best PP QB in the league for a spell because of how strong the PP was when he was healthy.
Right. I was trying to lead a horse to water but I guess you're even more sick of this than I am hahaha.. and I'm pretty sure both of us would pick Bourque, but someone has to stand up for Lidstrom too.

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Actually all it means is what he said, that Potvin was more directly responsible for his teams PP success than Lidstrom was for his.
Which, for me, certainly matches the eye test.
That might be what your eye tells you but it isn't what the number tells you -- at least not without further research.

It is a percentage of a unit stat being used to describe an individual's play. ie. it MAY be pointing in the right direction but that is about it.

I think you have a point here and this happens far too often when someone tries to make "simple" mathematical equations to explain things.
There's too much info missing IMO which makes such an equation extremely subjective.

Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
Coffey and Orr get penalized for team.

Coffey, Orr and Bourque are all penalized for era.

Why is it somehow sacrilegious to apply the same standards to Lidstrom- who played on dominant, defensivley-sound teams?

Between 1994 and 2010 (Lidstrom's career, essentially), the Selke went to Wing forwards seven times.

His defensive prowess should be as suspect as any 80s era puck-rushing D's offense.
Lidstrom was the common factor across that entire time.

None of the Selke winners that you think call into question his defense were there the whole time.

Add to this Hollands post-lockout idea that goaltending was the position that had the easiest replacement value and I think you're barking up the wrong tree altogether.

I mean, you did see Nicklas Lidstrom play?

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Right, which is what I did. That measure corrects too strongly for team strength:

Another way of looking at it is making the assumption that for every era, every PP goal had 2.8 points associated with it (one goal, 1.8 assists). Divide the PP% contribution by that much, and then subtract that number from the team strength. This gives players credit for their own contributions to a strong PP.

These results show that the top offensive defensemen were more or less-the-same in terms of contributions on the PP. Orr is the huge outlier. Macinnis, Potvin, and Leetch pfollow. Then you have Lidstrom, Zubov, Tremblay, and PArk, followed by Housley and Coffey.

The above should fix that.

The stat you are looking at is a prime comparison, not a peak comparison. Also, like I said, it definitely over-corrects for team strength. It even brings Orr down to human levels.

So now that it looks absurd lets massage it just right to still show what we want but not look absurd?

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.
I would agree. Sometimes the powerplay quarterback is a forward in the absence of a good puck moving defenseman too.

I know Mario Lemieux commented in one of the articles I found about Paul Coffey in the most recent all time draft that having Coffey on the team was a big difference in their powerplay for example. He claimed it made his job much easier.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote