HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Notices

Serious Discussion, take the pissing match elsewhere...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-10-2005, 04:45 PM
  #1
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Serious Discussion, take the pissing match elsewhere...

Try and keep the 2 line responses to a minimum... if you can't contribute something meaningful...

SHAD UP!

Quote:
Originally Posted by abracanada
Is this statistic a result of being better defensively, or having more speed. Are the minutes played the toughest minutes or are they the minutes played against the most offensively productive (and usually, faster) players? It all depends on the bias of the coach. If the coach believes you need to match speed with speed in order to cope with faster players, you are going to get numbers similar to the ones posted earlier. Is Lydman the best defensive defenseman, or the fastest? Is Ferrence known for his defensive game, or his speed?
I think we can all agree that the best way to win hockey games is to have more goals than the other team.

Pretty simple correct? I mean, it's basic hockey.

It doesn't matter how the results are garnered... what's important is the actual results. If you can be on the ice against good players (i.e. Modano, Forsberg, etc...) and out-score them, that's a solid sign. This is why a guy like Lydman and Smith are very comparable (even though their styles of play are completely different).

It doesn't matter how you get the results, as long as you get them. If Lydman does it with finesse, and Ference does it with a lesser toolbox, or whatever, it doesn't matter.

Quote:
Any GM who would use one single statistic like the one being discussed here in order to assign abilities to his players, would be looking to have his pockets picked. There is a reason Regehr played on Team Canada at the Olympics, and Ferrence didn't.
Regehr didn't play for Team Canada at the Olympics, but that is besides the point.

And one single statistic? Do you understand the implications of this one single statistic? It's the whole point of hockey. The idea is to win games, and the only way to win games is to outscore.

And the surest way to outscore is to do it against their best players. If you can outscore every team's top 2 lines, you are a dominant hockey team... no questions asked.

If Lydman outscores quality opposition a lot more than Regehr (which he does), doesn't it make sense to keep putting him out there, because he gets you wins?

Don't trust how good a player looks... trust what he does...

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
08-10-2005, 05:03 PM
  #2
ryz
Registered User
 
ryz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,245
vCash: 500
Well, in terms of the simple fact that, as you say, to win a hockey game you have to score more goals than the other team a good question becomes.... "What is more important, putting pucks into the other teams net or keeping pucks out of your own"? You obviously think that option #1 is the way to go but you have to have a balance of the two. If, for example, D#1 is better at keeping pucks out of his own net than D#2, how many goals for does that equal on D#1's part? If he keeps an extra 10 pucks out of the net does that equal an extra 10 goals for on the stat sheet for him? I think it basically does and as far as the names you use in your own post go, I think Regher is better at keeping the puck out of our net than Lydman is. What is that worth?

ryz is offline  
Old
08-10-2005, 05:10 PM
  #3
HellsBells
Registered User
 
HellsBells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryz
Well, in terms of the simple fact that, as you say, to win a hockey game you have to score more goals than the other team a good question becomes.... "What is more important, putting pucks into the other teams net or keeping pucks out of your own"? You obviously think that option #1 is the way to go but you have to have a balance of the two. If, for example, D#1 is better at keeping pucks out of his own net than D#2, how many goals for does that equal on D#1's part? If he keeps an extra 10 pucks out of the net does that equal an extra 10 goals for on the stat sheet for him? I think it basically does and as far as the names you use in your own post go, I think Regher is better at keeping the puck out of our net than Lydman is. What is that worth?
I agree with you.

Allowing less goals is the same as scoring more goals.

The Flames, for instance, would have Regehr out there to shut down the big line rather than Lydman out there to score on them.

HellsBells is offline  
Old
08-10-2005, 05:28 PM
  #4
Badger Bob
Registered User
 
Badger Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in my happy place
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,286
vCash: 500
The other one was closed out for a reason. One false move by anybody, and this gets the kabosh too, and future such threads will be automatically canned.

Badger Bob is offline  
Old
08-10-2005, 09:37 PM
  #5
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
I agree with you.

Allowing less goals is the same as scoring more goals.

The Flames, for instance, would have Regehr out there to shut down the big line rather than Lydman out there to score on them.
You just aren't grasping it are you?

Outscoring doesn't mean filling the net.

Let me ask you this... in a 10 game stretch, Lydman is on the ice for 15 goals for and 5 goals against, so a +10 in goal differential. In otherwords, he outscored the opposition by 10 goals in 10 games. Regehr, in the same 10 game stretch, is on the ice for 4 goals for and 3 goals against. A +1 differential. Both are playing against similar opposition (for the sake of argument).

What is more valuable in helping a team win? Outscoring by 10 goals, or outscoring by 1 goal?

What will give you a better regular season result, outscoring by 8 goals (+1 every 10 games) or outscoring by 80 goals (+10 every 10 games)?

Before you answer, go look at past standings. How many teams that were a +8 in goal differential finished higher than teams with a +80?

None.

Even making the numbers more realistic. Say Lydman gets +4 over the course of 10 games, and Regehr gets +2 over the same 10 games. The numbers are now +32 and +16. How many teams who had a goal differential of +16 finished higher in the standings than teams who had a goal differential of +32? You may find the odd one, but most of the time, it's the team that is +32.

Outscoring is what you want. Whether it's 35 gf 25 ga or 10 gf 0 ga, it's still the same number, and history has shown that in the end, they tend to equal out.

As for rather having Regehr out there than Lydman, it's not what the shift chart says. When the Flames face Naslund or Forsberg or whoever, it's Warrener or Lydman who get the call (especially when the Flames are at home).

dawgbone is offline  
Old
08-10-2005, 09:51 PM
  #6
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryz
Well, in terms of the simple fact that, as you say, to win a hockey game you have to score more goals than the other team a good question becomes.... "What is more important, putting pucks into the other teams net or keeping pucks out of your own"? You obviously think that option #1 is the way to go but you have to have a balance of the two. If, for example, D#1 is better at keeping pucks out of his own net than D#2, how many goals for does that equal on D#1's part? If he keeps an extra 10 pucks out of the net does that equal an extra 10 goals for on the stat sheet for him? I think it basically does and as far as the names you use in your own post go, I think Regher is better at keeping the puck out of our net than Lydman is. What is that worth?
In the end, goal differential (outscoring) is the key... in the post above I explain it a lot more, but I figured I would touch on it here a bit.

Look at the NHL standings in recent years. Look up and down the standings. I mean aside from the rare instances like last year (where an unbalanced shedule benefitted some teams and hurt others), as a general rule teams that have positive goal differentials will finish higher than ones that don't. And the greater your goal differential (or out-scoring), the higher in the stands you finish.

For example (grabing from the same division because generally the schedules are simmilar. If you start comparing teams in different divisions, i.e. Calgary, St.Louis, there is no way to factor in the schedule, which is very different in the NHL):

03-04

Vancouver + 41
Colorado + 38
Calgary + 24
Edmonton + 13
Minnesota + 5

02-03

Colorado +57
Vancouver +56
Minnesota +20
Edmonton +1
Calgary -42

01-02

Colorado +43
Vancouver +43
Edmonton +23
Calgary -19
Minnesota -43

00-01

Colorado +78
Edmonton +21
Vancouver +1
Calgary -39
Minnesota -42

Almost like clockwork...

dawgbone is offline  
Old
08-10-2005, 09:59 PM
  #7
Jack_007
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
Same Team!!!

What the hell are you guys bickering about, we are all hardcore flames fans!! We also all trust Sutter, so let's let things play out and continue to cheer the team we love from the SAME side!!!

Jack_007 is offline  
Old
08-10-2005, 11:30 PM
  #8
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,272
vCash: 500
Hey DB, while your at it, how did things look for forwards for Calgary last year? I think I can guess who would be number one in tough minutes and ES outscoring, but knowing the rest of the top five would be interesting.

Thanks, I am completely computer illiterate and can't figure out igor's shift chart reader.

kruezer is offline  
Old
08-11-2005, 08:19 AM
  #9
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
Hey DB, while your at it, how did things look for forwards for Calgary last year? I think I can guess who would be number one in tough minutes and ES outscoring, but knowing the rest of the top five would be interesting.

Thanks, I am completely computer illiterate and can't figure out igor's shift chart reader.
It actually wasn't who you think it was...

Conroy was first, Iginla was 4th (but I think alot had to do with him playing with Lombardi for stretches).

Gelinas, Clark and Kobasew were also there (hence the reason Kobasew got his ass kicked 5 on 5). Keep in mind this is total ice time. Rhino would have been up there, but he only played 44 games... so take that for what it is worth.

In terms of outscoring... let's put it this way... If Iginla wasn't on the ice, and neither was Kipper... the Flames got pounded. If both were on the ice, the Flames were absolute demons at outscoring. With just one of them, they held their own.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
08-11-2005, 08:34 AM
  #10
abracanada
Registered User
 
abracanada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,574
vCash: 500
Conroy ahead of Iginla, is a perfect example of the free ride players that get good numbers because of the combinations that are put on the ice. Baron would probably be another. And that, is why, this particular statistic, is one I view with a great deal of skepticism.

What other forwards were ahead of Iginla? It is also skewed by injuries. I suspect Forsberg did terribly.

abracanada is offline  
Old
08-11-2005, 09:27 AM
  #11
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by abracanada
Conroy ahead of Iginla, is a perfect example of the free ride players that get good numbers because of the combinations that are put on the ice. Baron would probably be another. And that, is why, this particular statistic, is one I view with a great deal of skepticism.
Free ride? You do understand what we are talking about correct? It's the minutes that players play against the best players in the league. i.e. the Sakic's, Forsberg's etc... Conroy got the majority of those minutes for the Flames last year.

This is who your coach chooses to put out on the ice. The outscoring numbers are the actual results.

I can see why you are confused though... I put who was up there for minutes, not outscoring.

Iginla was far and away the teams best out-scorer, but he was only playing the 5th hardest minutes on the team.

As a side note, no one on Calgary was an out-scorer when neither Iginla or Kipper was on the ice. Those 2 are just damn good hockey players.

Quote:
What other forwards were ahead of Iginla? It is also skewed by injuries. I suspect Forsberg did terribly.
Iginla wasn't hurt though. And Forsberg, when healthy, gets all the hard minutes (generally the toughest in the league). Sutter just wasn't matching Iginla up for some reason, though I suspect a strong reason for that was because Rhino was hurt and Lombardi was forced to go up the chart a bit (and Sutter essentially used Iggy to babysit him... and for the record, Stoll played supersoft minutes for the Oilers as well, so it's not a knock on Lombardi).

dawgbone is offline  
Old
08-11-2005, 12:25 PM
  #12
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
re: Iginla , this may be a simplistic answer but I actually don't think sutter matches him up much

he simply throws him out on the ice alot, and lets other teams put out whomever they choose against him (often so called 'checkers' who are frequently inferior hockey players)

anywas Sutter hinted to that one time that he wasn't going to let the other coach dictate when Iginla was on the ice

not sure if that makes sense?

looooob is offline  
Old
08-11-2005, 01:58 PM
  #13
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
re: Iginla , this may be a simplistic answer but I actually don't think sutter matches him up much

he simply throws him out on the ice alot, and lets other teams put out whomever they choose against him (often so called 'checkers' who are frequently inferior hockey players)

anywas Sutter hinted to that one time that he wasn't going to let the other coach dictate when Iginla was on the ice

not sure if that makes sense?
I think so Loooob, it seems to me from those results that it was Conroy that was getting matched up with the tough centers (much like Langkow will be this year) and Iginla just played against whomever the other coach felt like playing, since Sutter had confidence that Iginla would outscore anybody.

I could definetaly see him babysitting Lombardi for streches as well, but what shocks me is Kobasew being up there, cause he definetaly got destroyed 5on5, its nice to see he wasn't getting soft minutes too, if he can break even next season with similar minutes that would be excellent I think.

It also shows that Sutter definetaly trusted the line of Gelinas-Conroy-Clark (which I believe was together for stretches) with all three of those guys gone, I wonder who Sutter will fill their roles with? I'm guessing Langkow at center, but what two wingers?

kruezer is offline  
Old
08-11-2005, 02:02 PM
  #14
abracanada
Registered User
 
abracanada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Free ride? You do understand what we are talking about correct? It's the minutes that players play against the best players in the league. i.e. the Sakic's, Forsberg's etc... Conroy got the majority of those minutes for the Flames last year.

This is who your coach chooses to put out on the ice. The outscoring numbers are the actual results.

I can see why you are confused though... I put who was up there for minutes, not outscoring.

Iginla was far and away the teams best out-scorer, but he was only playing the 5th hardest minutes on the team.

As a side note, no one on Calgary was an out-scorer when neither Iginla or Kipper was on the ice. Those 2 are just damn good hockey players.



Iginla wasn't hurt though. And Forsberg, when healthy, gets all the hard minutes (generally the toughest in the league). Sutter just wasn't matching Iginla up for some reason, though I suspect a strong reason for that was because Rhino was hurt and Lombardi was forced to go up the chart a bit (and Sutter essentially used Iggy to babysit him... and for the record, Stoll played supersoft minutes for the Oilers as well, so it's not a knock on Lombardi).
I am not trying to become embroiled in a pissing contest however, I do believe you have to look at the big picture. Okay, Forsberg was on the ice for some of the toughest minutes when we talk about opposing players. How did that work out for them? Iginla was only number five on playing against tough players. I am ok with that. If anything, maybe Sutters playing Iginla "soft" minutes, enabled the Flames to put a few more Ws in the column. With the ultimate outcome being the Flames playing in the cup final, maybe Sutter was outcoaching those who are focusing on line matches. Ya gotta like the bottom line.

abracanada is offline  
Old
08-11-2005, 02:07 PM
  #15
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by abracanada
I am not trying to become embroiled in a pissing contest however, I do believe you have to look at the big picture. Okay, Forsberg was on the ice for some of the toughest minutes when we talk about opposing players. How did that work out for them? Iginla was only number five on playing against tough players. I am ok with that. If anything, maybe Sutters playing Iginla "soft" minutes, enabled the Flames to put a few more Ws in the column. With the ultimate outcome being the Flames playing in the cup final, maybe Sutter was outcoaching those who are focusing on line matches. Ya gotta like the bottom line.
Exactly Abra, its not that getting soft minutes necessarily makes the player a bad player, it depends on the strategy the coach is looking for, much like Sutter's PT on the backend, with Warrener and Lydman getting the tough minutes and freeing up the Regehr-Leopold combo to dominate and perhaps increase their confidence.

In the same sense, Forsberg got harder minutes than Sakic, does that make him better? Could it have been opposite and still effective? The question isn't exactly answered in the stats, it never is.

kruezer is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 11:35 AM
  #16
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by abracanada
I am not trying to become embroiled in a pissing contest however, I do believe you have to look at the big picture. Okay, Forsberg was on the ice for some of the toughest minutes when we talk about opposing players. How did that work out for them?
Generally when Forsberg is healthy it works out darn well for them. When he isn't they are a lesser team.

Quote:
Iginla was only number five on playing against tough players. I am ok with that. If anything, maybe Sutters playing Iginla "soft" minutes, enabled the Flames to put a few more Ws in the column. With the ultimate outcome being the Flames playing in the cup final, maybe Sutter was outcoaching those who are focusing on line matches. Ya gotta like the bottom line.
Or maybe it cost them the Stanley Cup. They got Hasek-esque goaltending from Kipper in the playoffs (and Hasek took a Buffalo team that wasn't as good as last years Flames team to the Cup final back in '99). We know that goaltending can carry a team through the playoffs (Hasek, Giguere, etc...).

But there are two ways to look at it... the Flames got to where they did by playing Iggy softer minutes, or they lost the cup because of it (where the lightning badly outscored the Flames when Iggy wasn't on the ice, because of how much scoring depth they had).

dawgbone is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 11:50 AM
  #17
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
Exactly Abra, its not that getting soft minutes necessarily makes the player a bad player, it depends on the strategy the coach is looking for, much like Sutter's PT on the backend, with Warrener and Lydman getting the tough minutes and freeing up the Regehr-Leopold combo to dominate and perhaps increase their confidence.
Except that Regehr-Leopold do not dominate... at least not in out-scoring. And they especially don't when they aren't playing with Iginla (while Lydman and Warrener don't play nearly as much with Iginla).

What you see with the consistantly good teams is that they try and line up their best against the oppositions best. Very few bottom lines outscore in the NHL, so if you can dominate the top lines, your bottom lines can be outscored and you are in the same boat.

The Oilers back in the late 90's used to send out the MGM (Moreau-Grier-Marchant) line agaisnt all the big guns. This was teams with guys like Weight and Guerin, etc... MGM used to be outscored, but they'd keep it close while the Oilers tried to get Weight Guerin and Smyth easier minutes so they'd outscore there. I don't think there is any doubt that the Oilers of the late 90's had far more top line talent than the team in recent years, yet their results are very comparable.

The problem with going the other way, is that you tend to take the game out of your best players hands (at least IMO, based on everything I've looked up).

Quote:
In the same sense, Forsberg got harder minutes than Sakic, does that make him better? Could it have been opposite and still effective? The question isn't exactly answered in the stats, it never is.
I don't think there is any doubt that it makes Forsberg better. Forsberg plays very tough minutes and out-scores Sakic who plays easier minutes. Obviously there's a certain amount of common sense that needs to be used, but I think that it is safe to say that if Forsberg outscores Sakic with harder minutes, he's certainly going to do it with easier minutes.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 11:56 AM
  #18
ckendall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
Look at the combination of minutes played and this silly "tough minutes" played: if a great player, say for example Iginla, leads all forwards in minutes but not "tough minutes" then so much the better. That means the other teams lesser players are on the ice more often which favours us. Exact same stat applies to Regehr. That triple overtime game against Vancouver he played something like 50 minutes - if a large chunk of those minutes weren't "tough" then so much the better, that's less time on the ice for the other teams top 2 lines.

ckendall is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 12:50 PM
  #19
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckendall
Look at the combination of minutes played and this silly "tough minutes" played: if a great player, say for example Iginla, leads all forwards in minutes but not "tough minutes" then so much the better. That means the other teams lesser players are on the ice more often which favours us.
But that isn't the case. If Iginla is playing 20 minutes worth of softer minutes, there is still 40 minutes of icetime where the other teams better players can be playing.

Granted, having Iginla out there against lesser players is good for your team, but that also means the other teams better players are out there against your lesser players, which isn't good for your team.

It's a trade-off... and it was something used a lot in the past, but not nearly so much anymore. It certainly worked for the Flames last year, but will it work if Kipper isn't the best goalie in the league again?

Think of it this way... if Kipper was just average in the playoffs, would the Flames have made it as far as they did?

Of course not.

Excellent goaltending allows you to get away with a lot of things. He used Kipper instead of Iggy to beat the oppositions best players and it worked out well for the Flames (except in the finals).

Quote:
Exact same stat applies to Regehr. That triple overtime game against Vancouver he played something like 50 minutes - if a large chunk of those minutes weren't "tough" then so much the better, that's less time on the ice for the other teams top 2 lines.
Well not really, because 50 minutes over 2 games (6 periods) isn't huge), but there is still 70 minutes where the other team had a chance for their best players.

So you want Regehr (a guy who doesn't put up many points), out there against players that aren't usually scoring threats?

Why would you want that if he's apparantly as good as alot of people thinks he is?

dawgbone is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 01:52 PM
  #20
abracanada
Registered User
 
abracanada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,574
vCash: 500
These arguments tend to go in circles over and over again. There are two ways to look at it, and most of us want to look at it in a positive way since it is a Flames board.

I still believe you can lose all perspective if you focus on one simple statistic. Not that you aren't entitled to do so. It is just that I, and some of the others on this board, prefer to think that Iginla is a good hockey player, Regehr is a good hockey player, the Flames are a good hockey club, and not everything they accomplished, was because of Kipper (not that Kipper isn't a good hockey player). I don't think you, or your statistic, is going to convince anyone otherwise, but you are entitled to your opinion. I don't know how I can put it more diplomatically.

abracanada is offline  
Old
08-12-2005, 09:09 PM
  #21
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Except that Regehr-Leopold do not dominate... at least not in out-scoring. And they especially don't when they aren't playing with Iginla (while Lydman and Warrener don't play nearly as much with Iginla).

What you see with the consistantly good teams is that they try and line up their best against the oppositions best. Very few bottom lines outscore in the NHL, so if you can dominate the top lines, your bottom lines can be outscored and you are in the same boat.
I agree, I was moreso intending that to say 'Regehr and Leopold can play softer minutes until they can dominate and therefore gain confidence and then get bumped up to playing harder minutes once Lydman and Warrener are gone'

I didn't come out like that

kruezer 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 09:57 AM.

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.