HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Leaf trades? What do you guys think?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-24-2005, 04:02 PM
  #201
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
As you so predictably always do, you are trying to make ME the topic because your theory has been exposed as pure tripe. At the center of your argument is this ridiculous "points per minute" statistic. Everyone but you realizes that it is completely useless and meaningless. When you pull out that completely and meaningless block, your entire argument comes crumbling down.
Can you provide a post number where a "point per minute" stat is raised by me in this thread ? .. Rhetorical question.

What has been discussed is how scoring stats benefit from more ice time which is not merely "points per minute". Nowhere in this thread have you be able to offer anything of substance to refute or contribute to the discussion of that specific topic beyond attacking the poster or providing "cat calls" from the bleachers. rather than addressing the issue

The top 20% of forwards in total ice time over the last six NHL seasons (according to NHLPA) scored 56% of the points while the "bottom" 80% of the forwards in ice time scored only 44% of the points.

The top 20% of forwards in NHL scoring over the last six NHL seasons (according the NHLPA) scored 58% of the points and averaged 18.50 minutes per game while the bottom 80% scored only 42% of the points and only averaged 11.56 minutes per game.

The top 20% of forwards in points per game over the last six NHL seasons (according the NHLPA) scored 55% of the points and averaged 18.46 minutes and .74 points per game while the bottom 80% scored only 45% of the points and only averaged 11.57 minutes and .28 points per game.

The top 20% of forwards in time on ice per game over the last six NHL seasons (according the NHLPA) scored 55% of the points and averaged 18.88 minutes and .74 points per game while the bottom 80% scored only 45% of the points and only averaged 11.44 minutes and .28 points per game.


The following is a scatter graph of NHL forwards scoring plotted against ice time from the NHLPA database:


On the vertical, we have total points scored over the past six years. On the horizontal, we have total ice time for the forwards scoring those points over the last six years. Each one of the plots represents one of the 600+ forwards in the NHLPA database. The better scorers make up the higher plots relative to ice time. The poorer scorers make up the lower plots relative to ice time (ie McKenna). But clearly, as ice time goes by, all scorers see their points increase.

The top scoring forward getting 6000 minutes of ice time (12.2 mins/game min) was slightly higher than double the scoring of the worst scoring forward getting 6000 minutes of ice time in that time period. If there wasn’t a relationship, you’d see a few forwards getting nearly no points after 6000 minutes of ice time. Instead, we see a general trend of points going upward over time.

Is the graph the "last word" answering every question on the issue ? Absolutely not. It doesn't look at the effect of PP time separately for example or other factors than cannot be measured statistically. But it does very strongly and simply demonstrate a relationship between ice time and scoring.

The best scoring NHL forwards out score the weaker ones at two or three times the rate - but even the weaker ones do keep scoring over time. The more ice time a forward gets, the better chance that he has to put up points when we compare his scoring stats with another player.

If we can recognize that a player getting 200 games to put up scoring stats has a better chance to put up comparable points than a player playing 50 games, then the only major issue we have to overcome in contemplating this is the change in the unit of measure for time. And when you look at the scoring numbers, one ultimately finds that ice time is a more precise measurement to work with and make assessments with than merely games played.


Last edited by cleduc: 05-24-2005 at 04:08 PM.
cleduc is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 04:17 PM
  #202
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
Can you provide a post number where a "point per minute" stat is raised by me in this thread ?
Sure - Post #113

http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php...&postcount=113

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
In '04, Antropov saw much less ice time with his shoulder injury. With scoring as a function of ice time, Antropov's scoring of 31 pts was actually a little bit better than Bell's 45 pts.
No cat calls required.

AND THE WALLS... COME CRUMBLING DOWN - THE WALLS! COME CRUMBLING CRUMBLIN! CRUMBLING CRUMBLIN! DOOOOWWWWNNN!

salzy is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 04:33 PM
  #203
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
Sure - Post #113

http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php...&postcount=113



No cat calls required.

AND THE WALLS... COME CRUMBLING DOWN - THE WALLS! COME CRUMBLING CRUMBLIN! CRUMBLING CRUMBLIN! DOOOOWWWWNNN!
There's no points per minute stat provided in that post. There is the recongition of Bell's advantage in having additional ice time or Antropov's disadvantage with less ice time when comparing their scoring stats. An advantage/disadvantage that I note, you have been unable to refute.

cleduc is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 05:20 PM
  #204
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
There's no points per minute stat provided in that post. There is the recongition of Bell's advantage in having additional ice time or Antropov's disadvantage with less ice time when comparing their scoring stats. An advantage/disadvantage that I note, you have been unable to refute.
Either you need to look up the word "function" in the dictionary in the mathematical context that you used it, or you need to explain HOW "Antropov's scoring of 31 pts was actually a little bit better than Bell's 45 pts" without using the hysterical points per minute stat that you were obviously using but are now denying.

salzy is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 05:57 PM
  #205
Juicer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
And Letowski probably heard "Mr. Nice Guy's" apologies to the fans, the NHL and ref at the All Star game, and Letowski probably heard about the players asking "Mr. Nice Guy" to shutup during the playoffs because he had so many "nice things to say" and Letowski probably heard about "Mr. Nice Guy" apologizing to Snider and Clarke for his antics this summer and Letowski probably heard about "Mr. Nice Guy" apologizing to the players at the NHLPA meeting ....
I have no idea what he did or didn't hear, I just thought I would take his word for it since he was actually in the dressing room and went to war with him on the ice for a couple years. I he would have a better idea than any heresay and speculation from a person like yourself who not only has no idea, also hates him.

Juicer is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 07:26 PM
  #206
Juicer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
If you tripled McKenna’s his ice time, he may well get 3 x 10 pts = 30 pts with nearly 400 minutes in PP time but he would have the second highest ice time in the league for a forward in that season. And all of the other NHL forwards getting that sort of ice time double or triple the points McKenna delivers when you triple his ice time which is why no one would ever give McKenna that much ice time. Some can grasp that … coaches sure do.
What?! Are you on drugs? Are you suggesting an 18 minute player triple his icetime? Regardless, Steve McKenna would not score 27 goals in you tripled his ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
You claim that McKenna’s scoring somehow doesn’t relate to his ice time. It was shown to you that McKenna is 304th in ice time for forwards and he is 329th in scoring. In other words, that refutes your claim.
So you are saying since McKenna was 304th in ice time and finished 329th in scoring, if he were about 5th in icetime, he would probably move to about 30th in scoring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
McKenna’s scoring relates to his ice time - which is not what you claimed..
Pardon? I claimed you can't pro-rate a player minutes per game and just assume he will put up those numbers. It seems you are the ONLY ONE who thinks that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
Most knowledgeable hockey fans know that most forwards score at a higher rate on the power play than 5 on 5 or shorthanded. The proportion of McKenna’s ice time devoted to the power play is extraordinary.
Check again Mr. knowledgable hoackey fan. Take a look at some of the league leaders.

McKenna 21.3% of his TOI on the PP
Lemieux 25.4% of his TOI on the PP
Heatley 25.2% of his TOI on the PP
Iginla 23.5% of his TOI on the PP
Bertuzzi 25.6% of his TOI on the PP
Naslund 27.2% of his TOI on the PP
Sundin 22.4% of his TOI on the PP

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
How many players in the league got 130 mins PP time and only played 7.73 mins/per game or less ? Zero. Anyone else near 130 mins per season in PP time is getting 4.5 mins or more ice time per game than McKenna. He is an anomaly But one that does not refute the general relationship between ice time and scoring. Because his power play time is disproportionate to his other ice time for fourth liners, so is his scoring.
Whether or not his PP time is dispropotionate to other fourth liners, it is still less than most of the league's top scoring players and he would have been near those players in PP goals and goals period if he had their icetime according to your idiotic theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
In ’02, Bell did have the likes of Daze, Zhamnov, Amonte, Nylander, Sullivan & Calder around
In ’03, Bell did have the likes of Daze (hurt 30 gms), Zhamnov, Amonte, Arnason, Sullivan & Calder around for all or much of the season
In ’04, Bell did have the likes of Zhamnov (hurt & Feb trade), Ruutu, Arnason, Sullivan (Feb trade) & Calder around for some, all or much of the season
Now ’04 doesn’t exactly send shivers of fear to the opposition but let’s not pretend that they couldn’t put together some scoring talent for Bell better than Hoglund, Domi, Poni, Fitz, Renberg, etc in ’02 and ’03.[/quote]

Don't forget Mogilny and Sundin, the guys who factored in over half of his points. I wonder how many he would have had without Nieuwy carrying him last year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
And so has Antropov much if his career and roughly half of ‘02-03
Ummm... he hasn't done any other year, and so you are excited about him putting up 20 points in half a season over his entire career, then blowing again this year. Bell on the other hand has shown a nice progression. But, as you have already admitted, you wouldn't know.

Juicer is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 07:28 PM
  #207
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,141
vCash: 500
Hm, another thread involving either Leafs or Flyers players degenerates into petty bickering.

Who's surprised?

Not this guy.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.