I don't think McGinn needs to be replaced as much as Mitchell does.
If they can get rid of all three that would be preferable but Mitchell drives the puck in the right direction (or at least the Sharks do while he's on the ice) while McGinn certainly doesn't. Handzus is clearly the biggest issue though. He's horrendous.
If they can get rid of all three that would be preferable but Mitchell drives the puck in the right direction (or at least the Sharks do while he's on the ice) while McGinn certainly doesn't. Handzus is clearly the biggest issue though. He's horrendous.
The offense dies on Mitchell's stick. I don't care if he does drive possession. When the play is killed on your stick, you're not doing your job.
The offense dies on Mitchell's stick. I don't care if he does drive possession. When the play is killed on your stick, you're not doing your job.
Do you have numbers on "plays killed by Torrey Mitchell" or any other Shark? I think this is a case of selective memory. He's far from ideal for his role but he's a terrific forechecker which is a big reason why, for the last two seasons, the Sharks have had the puck a lot more than their opponents when Mitchell has been on the ice.
The "stone hands" comments are also heavily influenced by biases. His career shooting percentage is exactly league average for forwards.
Do you have numbers on "plays killed by Torrey Mitchell" or any other Shark? I think this is a case of selective memory. He's far from ideal for his role but he's a terrific forechecker which is a big reason why, for the last two seasons, the Sharks have had the puck a lot more than their opponents when Mitchell has been on the ice.
The "stone hands" comments are also heavily influenced by biases. His career shooting percentage is exactly league average for forwards.
I'm not going to argue with you because it's obvious how much you actually watch the team if you think that Mitchell drives possession. And his 'stone hands' name isn't derived from his shooting ability. It's from his inability to catch pucks on his stick, something you won't see on his stat sheet, even in advanced land.
You can believe what you want but he wasn't benched recently because he was driving possession for the team.
I'm not going to argue with you because it's obvious how much you actually watch the team if you think that Mitchell drives possession. And his 'stone hands' name isn't derived from his shooting ability. It's from his inability to catch pucks on his stick, something you won't see on his stat sheet, even in advanced land.
You can believe what you want but he wasn't benched recently because he was driving possession for the team.
The "watch the games" argument is tired and pathetic. Mitchell isn't a great player. I realize that. But he's without a doubt been the most effective player on that line. His inability to receive passes didn't prevent the Sharks from massively outshooting the opposition when he was on the ice last season. A lot of that was admittedly Wellwood and Pavelski but he was an integral part of that line and he's done his best for the majority of this season to drive the play in the right direction. It isn't a coincidence that he's the only player on that line who's above water in terms of possession.
He was benched because he had a poor spate of games. It happens. He's been very good since returning.
It's even more ridiculous to try and change the subject of your original point by trying to make another.
Do I need to spell this out for you? The notion that Mitchell is any worse at scoring on shots than the average NHL forward is flawed based on his career shooting percentage. I don't understand what other point I was trying to make there.
The "watch the games" argument is tired and pathetic. Mitchell isn't a great player. I realize that. But he's without a doubt been the most effective player on that line. His inability to receive passes didn't prevent the Sharks from massively outshooting the opposition when he was on the ice last season. A lot of that was admittedly Wellwood and Pavelski but he was an integral part of that line and he's done his best for the majority of this season to drive the play in the right direction. It isn't a coincidence that he's the only player on that line who's above water in terms of possession.
He was benched because he had a poor spate of games. It happens. He's been very good since returning.
The advanced statistics argument is also tired and pathetic and meaningless.
The "watch the games" argument is tired and pathetic. Mitchell isn't a great player. I realize that. But he's without a doubt been the most effective player on that line. His inability to receive passes didn't prevent the Sharks from massively outshooting the opposition when he was on the ice last season. A lot of that was admittedly Wellwood and Pavelski but he was an integral part of that line and he's done his best for the majority of this season to drive the play in the right direction. It isn't a coincidence that he's the only player on that line who's above water in terms of possession.
He was benched because he had a poor spate of games. It happens. He's been very good since returning.
It really doesn't take that much time to look up and interpret the numbers. If more people did that instead of strictly going off their flawed memory they might be able to properly evaluate players and teams.
It really doesn't take that much time to look up and interpret the numbers. If more people did that instead of strictly going off their flawed memory they might be able to properly evaluate players and teams.
What makes you think that your method is properly evaluating players and teams? It really isn't actually. It's just your opinion.
Do I need to spell this out for you? The notion that Mitchell is any worse at scoring on shots than the average NHL forward is flawed based on his career shooting percentage. I don't understand what other point I was trying to make there.
Your right. I was combining your responses to PF with your responses to mine. Stupid responses non the less, but I'll give you that.
I'm getting drunk and not in the mood to argue with someone who thinks that stats tell the whole story. Mitchell needs to go as trade bait and we need someone better than him on the 3rd line. Have since the season opener. It's as simple as that.
What makes you think that your method is properly evaluating players and teams? It really isn't actually. It's just your opinion.
The entire point is it's not my opinion though. It's facts and evidence. Namely, the facts that represent which players excel at puck possession and the evidence that puck possession is the single most important aspect of even strength hockey that's within teams' and players' control. I agree with you that Mitchell isn't very good but if I could only get rid of two forwards on the Sharks I'd get rid of the ones that are the worst at driving possession and those, both at the moment and based on their entire careers' body of work, are McGinn and Handzus.
The entire point is it's not my opinion though. It's facts and evidence. Namely, the facts that represent which players excel at puck possession and the evidence that puck possession is the single most important aspect of even strength hockey that's within teams' and players' control. I agree with you that Mitchell isn't very good but if I could only get rid of two forwards on the Sharks I'd get rid of the ones that are the worst at driving possession and those, both at the moment and based on their entire careers' body of work, are McGinn and Handzus.
The entire point is it's not my opinion though. It's facts and evidence. Namely, the facts that represent which players excel at puck possession and the evidence that puck possession is the single most important aspect of even strength hockey that's within teams' and players' control. I agree with you that Mitchell isn't very good but if I could only get rid of two forwards on the Sharks I'd get rid of the ones that are the worst at driving possession and those, both at the moment and based on their entire careers' body of work, are McGinn and Handzus.
Which facts you choose to use to properly evaluate a player is purely subjective and opinion-based.
Your shooting percentage stat really doesn't tell you much. The problem is Mitchell for instance might take one or two shots a game most nights. Over the course of a hundred shots could span a period of upto 50 games. Over those 50 games, a fair percentage will be facing poor defense or a poor goaltender. So sometimes his poor shooting is going to be more effective. That's likely why a lot of mediocre players 'return to the mean' as you say.
It's not a worthless stat for sure, but I think it's only truly useful for players with a high shot count per game.
Which facts you choose to use to properly evaluate a player is purely subjective and opinion-based.
Nope. It's based on the mountainsofevidence that shooting percentage is unsustainable and non-repeatable at the NHL level so metrics affected by it are of little use in predicting future performance.
Nope. It's based on the mountainsofevidence that shooting percentage is unsustainable and non-repeatable at the NHL level so metrics affected by it are of little use in predicting future performance.
That is irrelevant to what I was responding to. Stop trying to move the goal posts.
That is irrelevant to what I was responding to. Stop trying to move the goal posts.
You were responding to me using Corsi to evaluate McGinn/Handzus/Mitchell, yes? The reason Corsi is more valuable than point totals or plus-minus or any other conventional statistic is because of the inherent unreliability of shooting and save percentage at even strength.
