View Single Post
02-19-2013, 07:13 PM
Registered User
Fourier's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
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.
You keep saying this. But we now have indisputable evidence to show that the pattern is that the first line has played virtually every game against the opponents best offensive line. Here are the most common opponents when Nuge played

San Jose (2 games) Marleau, Thorton, Pavelski
Colorado (3 games) Duchene, Parenteau, McQuinn
Vancouver (2 games) Sedin, Sedin, XXX
Calgary (1 game) Iginla, Tanguay, Glencross
Phoenix (1 game) Vermette, Doan, XXX
Columbus (1 game) Umberger, Brassard, Dorsett
Detroit (1 game) Brunner, Zetterberg, Fransen
LA (1 game) No real pattern
Dallas (1 game) Morrow, Benn, Jagr

There you go. 13 games played and the most common opponent for the first line was the other teams first line in 12 of those games.

Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

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.
Read Bob's post again responding to your manipulation of this data. It actually shows what the proper statistical impact of the time difference would be even if you assumed that Schultz was the guy driving the lower goal total. And they are indeed negligible.

The argument you presented to support your position involved a bunch of completely unjustifiable manipulations of averages. Bob again showed why this was quite simply mathematically wrong!!!

You now say you had the flu, which I am sorry to hear. But rather than admitting that you have no statistical evidence to support your position, or even more so that the stats actually contradict your assertion, you insisted on clinging to your point.

Of course one might also just as easily pose the hypothesis that Schultz's numbers were better than other dmen because he plays more with the more defensivley responsible first line, something that you would clearly reject. And guess what. With respect to GAON/60, the stat that you were trying to show Shultz's impact on, when Gagner has actually played with Schultz, Gagner's numbers are no different than they are with all defensemen combined.

As to Whitney, I have no idea why you keep bringing up this stuff about him being benched. When he is benched he did not play with the first line either. The point is that in terms of actual time on the ice, Whitney played roughly the same amount with both the first line and with the second. Yet you still want to ignore this fact.

Why would Whitney be a bigger drag on the second line than he is on the first in roughly the same amount of time. Could it be because they first line is better at covering up his issues?

Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
You showed select instances of opponent matching to suit your argument.

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.
Of course I posted evidence to support my position. That was the point. What I did not do is cherry pick the data. I posted the data that was available at the time. we now have much more complete data which completley agrees with my assertion.

As to my claim that the data covered 9 games, the two sets included info on 3 Colorado games, 2 Vancouver games, 2 SJ games as well as info from the games against Calgary and Phoenix, though I am happy to admit that the data from the last Calgary and Phoenix games came from a post on the main board I believe.

So we had 9 games of the 13 that RNH played. Not a complete summary but since all of the arrows pointed in the same direction this looked to me to be strong eveidence in support of the claim.

In contrast, all you provided were some recollections, which I will show below were incorrect, which lead to some sort of scenario about shifts with Daniel Sedin played against Gagner's line.

Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
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.
No one ever disbuted that the first line played more with Schultz than the second. And it is clear that the stats I posted acknowledeged that the second line had Whitney about 3 more minutes over 10 game. This is roughy 20 seconds per game. All I ever said, and bob's post stated this directly, is that the Whitney issue is not a factor in distinguishing the two.

As to Schultz, why this is negligible has now been explained several times.

Moreover, the first line played more absolute even strength minutes yet they have given up fewer goals by almost 1/2. In fact, the difference in total ES time between the first and second lines is actually quite close to the difference in time that they have spent with Schultz over the second line. So unless you can explain how this extra time with Schultz the first line actually resulted in a negative number of goals scored I don't see how you can continue to beat this drum.

Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

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.

7mins at proper 45 second shifts= 9.5shifts. Not "very little".
Again, you refuse to admit that you are probably wrong despite all the evidence pointing against you. Instead you talk about things you remember and bring up some made up scenario with no evidence to show that it actually happened.

Go to and bring up the recap of that game. Under the box score tab you can find a tab that lists each player's time on the ice. If you compare Gagner with Henrik Sedin, who is the center on the line what you find is that in the first period they were on the line together exactly once out of the 8 shifts that Sedin took. ANd a total of three times in 18 shifts in the first two periods. Does this sound like the line matching you were describing?

Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
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.
I never suggested that Gagner's line never saw decent linemates.
Of course they will. But the reality is that while Datsuyk is a great player, this year Detroit's first line in the Zetterberg line. And in the one game that Nuge played against Dallas, his line saw Benn's line the most.

Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
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.
I have already said that GAON/60 does not tell a complete story. I also know the limitations in the stats. In this case though these numbers are simply a proxy for who was where when goals were scored.

What this data serves to do is to provide statistical evidence to either help back up or refute claims. When all the evidence points in one direction it makes a compelling case. Of course someone could ask the Oiler's coaches to break down the film for us, but I think I know where that will get us.

Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
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.

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.
This part of your post I can accept. I highlited the bolded part because it represents an opinion that I think could have been your response to the whole debate. Where you have lost me is in all the convoluted claims you have made to try and explain why what has actually happened is everyone else's fault. Moreover, I honestly do not think it helps your case in support of Gagner to make claims like your suggestion that the first line has been sheltered or that they have only been decent defensively because of Schultz.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote