View Single Post
02-19-2013, 03:23 PM
Checked out
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hiking
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,856
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post

The sole point was to provide some practical evidence to back up jadeddog's claim. And until Baby Nilsson provided us the link to that great resource this was the best we had.

In the end what is most ironic is that unlike Qualcomp which does have issues with small sample sizes, the stats that I quoted are actually more meaningful early in the season.
What you quoted was select instances of player matching. You've attempted to build generalized comments from there. More on that later.

As to opponents vs linemates, I actually think both are important.
Except that obviously at this point in time, and with limited sample of games played, its more evident what patterns take place in a teams own unit matching vs how opponents are matching against us. If this isn't clear theres 14GP where one can note who is playing with whom WITHIN the club. Theres instances of 1,2 games where one can note opponent matching. With the latter representing such short duration time frames and often little differentiation in the toi numbers.

But the statistical evidence debunking your claims that first it was all Whitney's fault and then it was the Justin Schultz factor had already been provided.
While you call it "debunking" perhaps you don't realize I was reacting to multiple claims made that the impact of a J Schultz or a Whitney would be "negligible". When in fact either would have a statistically significant impact on GA during their toi. In J Schultz's case I've pointed out that 1.03 LESS GA/60mins are scored anytime he's on the ice. This was a HUGE differential. (which has since changed)
Conversely any time R Whitney is on the ice More GA occur and to a statistically significant level. Even though you call these negligible differences. If they were so negligible I would wonder why the commitment to pairing on the club is so evident. For instance when this discussion started topline was getting J Schultz 49% of the time and 2nd line were getting him only 35% of the time.

Next, you claim that my statement that Whitney was being put out with 2nd line most often false. You claim that Bob corrected me on this. I noted to Bob that Whitney had been benched for two of the games and so that has to be considered. Bob mistakenly looked up the Gagner column and noted that he'd played with Whitney less than some of the other D. (but only because of the benched games interfering with the stat) but if we look directly at the Whitney column(which is what Bob should have been looking at) we see indeed that all along I'm correct and that Whitney is most matched with 2nd line.

Indeed, we now have even more evidence to support this. So all I was doing was to show that not only are the defensive issues attributed to Gagner and the second line on their own shoulders, but in fact the "sheltered" first line is actually getting the tough assignments. And I did this not by using some manipulation of +/- but by showing who they actually played against.
You showed select instances of opponent matching to suit your argument.

And I do recognize that the TOI data I posted was not complete. Though the two sets you objected to cover 9 of the Oilers 14 games. In this case we now have the near complete story which backs up completely the assertions that jadeddog and I made. (see the links below).
I'm not sure how 9 games are covered. Afairc you've hilited Vancouver, LA, and I believe Colorado. You could be more clear on which games and which opponents you feel it is quite clear that the topline is getting much harder minutes. Then I can rebut.

This is where much of the problem lies. You also knew for sure that Gagner's line had been stuck with Whitney and Potter so much more than the first line had. This was the reason for Gganer's higher goals against. YOu claimed this was obvious. And then bob pretty much put this fallacy to rest.
What I'm guilty of is overstating(hyperbole) that the J Schultz/R Whitney differentials in matching would make up the difference in GA. This factor doesn't make up all the difference but its not been negligible either. I think myself, and others, have been guilty of some distortions in how they comment on the data. In anycase I was never wrong that the 2nd line were stuck more often with Whitney and the first line had more of J Schultz. You like to make it sound like I'm wrong period.

So lets see whether what you say above is true.

It turns out that Gagner has played all of 6:22 against Henrik Sedin in the two games the Oilers have played the Canucks. In comparison RNH has had him for 13:33 minutes.
Daniel Sedin ftr had 7something minutes against 2nd line. Look, the first game was in Vancouver, Vancouver has last line change, and even during the telecast they were noting the matchup that the Nucks had matched Sedins vs the Gagner line. This was also being observed. Did it change up through the course of that first game? Possibly. But the above minutes does not prove my statement wrong as the Sedins WERE being matched against the Gagner line during the first game.

Now even if all of the time he played against Henrik was in the first game, which is extremely unlikely, we would still be talking about less than half of the time Gagner was on the ice.

So while your perception is that Gagner matched up against the Sedin's the reality is that he played very little against them.
7mins at proper 45 second shifts= 9.5shifts. Not "very little".

This is where much of the problem that you and I have stems from. In the last couple of years you have taken to making claims that you can't back up but insist on saying that these claims result from you closely observing the play. More so you claim that those of us who see it differently are driven by an agenda. We all do this to a degree but my issue arises when you are presented clear and unrefutable evidence that your views are wrong. Rather than simply conceding the point as you say you would, you tend to reference "spurious logic", ignore the obvious, or find some other twisted way of skirting the truth.
In this YOU are guilty of making a very general statement, attack really, on my posting history here. Being that your comments are so vague and general you know that I can't rebut for lack of specifics but you see fit to make the above statement anyway. How is this helpful to the exchange? Does it feel better to dismissively conclude I make no valid claims?

Lets look at some of your claims previously in this discussion. Theres statements to the effect that the topline are getting all of the hard matching, that they are seeing the toplines of other opponents every night. Well what about the name Pavel Datsyuk, widely considered to be the best pure center in hockey. Guess who got that matchup in that game? Gagner. How about Gagner seeing Jagr, Benn, Erikkson, Roy, Stastny, Hejduk, couture, Hudler, etc. Some of these could be considered first line opponents or not. On some teams as with ours, its not so crystal clear all the time who first line is or not. Or if its 1A, 1B. Sometimes the dropoff isn't that much in anycase. Note as well in cases where the differences in opponent toi are very little between 1st and 2nd line that by and large 1st line will be seeing more EV minutes against other toplines just on the basis of PLAYING 2-3 more EV minutes/night. This skews the opponent stats a little.

A recent example of the latter was the strange manipulations of the GAON/60 stats that you did which bob so clearly showed made no sense. Rather than acknowldging that what you wrote was nonesense you still claimed that you had indeed made your point re the mysterious Schultz factor. And guess what, the stats actually show that when playing with Schultz Gagners GA/20 number is 1.02 which is almost identical to his overall number.
I tried to make the post you refer to as sensible as possible but I've struggling with the flu, I'm not at my best, and it can impact how clearly I think or communicate. Looks like I didn't convey that post properly and nobody understood what I was trying to get at. I own that in that case.

But as far as using stats like GA/20mins or even GA/60mins the main problem is that not enough minutes are in yet. So in a lot of instances we're really arguing about random air and noise at this point. I'll demonstrate this succinctly. A lot has been discussed in these exchanges about Gagners EV GA this year. Currently sitting at 3.33/60mins. High, correct. But does anybody in this exchange think these numbers are valid, representative, or will continue? If so Gagner over a complete season last year was 2.22GA/60mins and with the least GA of any regular forward on the club.

So guess what my frustration level rises to when I check the board and see another 50 posts from people(not saying you but collectively, different posters) claiming Gagner is "Bad" defensively.

The reason I reacted to some of this in the first place is that I know the current Gagner GA are uncharacteristic of him now and where his game is at.

The Replacement that I enjoyed sparing with in the past would not have done that but would rather have admitted his error and gone on.
Above I've acknowledge the parts where I'm off but again I feel everybody has misrepresented the data, and that in general way too much is being made of GA to this point, so early in a season. A couple EV GA here or there skew the numbers so much right now due to the limited sample size. Even more so this year as EV play has been less represented due to the inordinate amount of penalties called thus far this season.

Hope this clarifies a little.

Last edited by Replacement*: 02-19-2013 at 03:57 PM.
Replacement* is offline   Reply With Quote