Thread: New Rumor...
View Single Post
Old
12-22-2003, 11:07 AM
  #21
stanley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasting time
Ha Ha, I just love it when you Flyer Fans quote GAA and SV% to justify why your goaltenders are fine. You have been doing this for years, and in the end you all finally realize that Clarke is a bozo when it comes to his goalies.

Tel me this:

Both Hackett and Esche have better GAA and SV% than Eddie Belfour. Are they better?
When did I write that I was a Flyer fan? When did Ed Belfour enter this discussion? You're reaching. I just think you're bent out of shape because you implied that it was laughable for one to consider Cechmanek better than Khabibulin, and I called you on it.

Are they better? I don't think so, but I'm not about to pass off my bias as fact. I also have written several times in other threads that I think Esche is of the ability and age to have a break-out season. Statistically, players encounter significant statistical improvement when they enter their middle twenties, and he's steadily been more reliable with time. Few people predicted the likes of Theodore and Giguere would experience the success they had before they encountered it. Somebody gave them the chance to succeed and I don't believe it's any small coincidence that they bloomed when the did. I don't have the data to confirm my suspiscion, but it would be interesting to review. The Flyers are taking a gamble, but wouldn't argue with anybody who claimed that when the value and cost to acquire the available goaltenders is considered, it's no more a gamble. If anybody hears that Lou is offering up Brodeur, let me know and I'll sell the information to Clarke.

Bill James and a few other people have determined that if you took every baseball player that has ever competed in the game and evaulated them with various value-based formulas (too involved to discuss here), you find that players are most productive at the age of 27. After that, production drops at a consistent rate. Moreover, different positional players encounter production-impacting factors. For example, any student of Sabremetrics would know you'd be much wiser to gamble on a 31-year-old second baseman than a 31-year-old catcher. I digress. I know of nobody who has conducted the same breadth of statistical analysis of hockey players, although I'm certain somebody has crunched the numbers and results to see what it all might mean. Hockey has some differences, such as its fast-paced, ever-changing style during a game that make it inherently difficult to assess (baseball doesn't have the first-baseman running off the field on a change when the batter is running down the baseline). I'd be really interested to see the numbers regarding goaltenders.

After reading that, maybe you can see how I can be wholly unimpressed by a statistical analysis comprised of an equal sign and a question mark. You're not alone. Now I'm not trying to claim I'm a statistical snob. We could fill the room with the stuff I don't know. I am simply interested in seeing people acknowledge they don't have all the information rather than present an end-all, beat-all scenario.

Anywho, I replied to respond to your last post. I'd prefer that you just write "I hate Clarke and I hate Cechmanek and I hate the Flyers" rather than attempting to pass of qualitative information as fact. If you're just coming here to ruffle up the hen house, I'd respectfully prefer that you just go away. This is a public forum, but we didn't all ask you to irritate everyone. Heated debate is fine - I wish we could all discuss this stuff without the agenda of supporting our respective favorites - but that's not what you've been doing.

Thanks.

stanley is offline