I know, whats this guy doing using in depth analysis to get a better understanding of that lines production.
Quote:
Using the "explosion" of Foligno is a possible explanation of Ennis' product is a joke. Ennis carried that line, Foligno and Stafford were just smart enough to get to the net and finish what Ennis started
So you expect Foligno to score on 26% of his shots again next year? So what are we're looking at a 35 goal season from Foligno next year? Because thats what his goal scoring production would be in 82gms based on what he did in those 14 games.
Admittedly, the folks on this board have taught me a lot about advanced stats. It's new to me as of about two months ago.
With that said, I agree with all of Coller's analysis except for the puck possession.
Corsi is the one stat that I perceive to be misleading, somewhat. It does measure shots for and against while a player is on the ice. That's not a direct translation of puck possession, nor does it measure scoring chances.
When I watch Detroit play, I notice that many of Detroit's scoring chances are very good, due to the skill of their players. There defense is positioned well, mostly, so they may give up shots, but those shots might not be high quality.
In the same way, Ennis' skill and speed put a lot of pressure on opposing defenses, and created a lot of high quality scoring chances. And how many times did we see Ennis wheeling in the offensive zone with opposition unable to get the puck away from him?
I think the corsi = puck possession isn't totally valid, though it's about as close as we can get. And with this point in mind, I don't think that the opposition was able to possess the puck over Buffalo in the way Coller writes about it.
All these QoC indicate more to ME is the use of coaching strategy more than a player's skill. Why would a coach not take advantage of a situtation that might help the team score a goal or defend a goal? If Ruff thinks that Ennis will possibley net him a goal more than say Gaustad in the offensive zone then why does it have to be a strike against a player? Same thing in the defensive zone. If Ruff feels that Gaustad has a better chance of winning a faceoff or stopping a PP than say Ennis, how does that make Ennis look incapable of playing any type of defense.
it's not a strike against the player. It's simply context through which their "numbers" should be evaluated
this whole offseason of Ennis boils down to 2 positions
1. Ennis is a young, high potential, offensive talent. But his production in a small window needs to be understood in more context then simply the points produced in a 12-33 game window.
Oh I forgot goals and assists don't matter Only "corsi" stats matter, how else would you prove your points regardless of which player.
Like I said all those stupid stats are subjective and don't prove ****.
(example) Looks like Derek Roy had the least amount of offensive zone starts for forwards aside from Gerbe, I get it now Roy only scored 44 points due to that! Thanks for these Corsi stats now I know that Roy is the best defensive forward and more valuable then any other Sabre forward and if anyone disagrees I'll bring this up and add 10 smilies I guess that's the reason he only scored 44 points , I see the light now these amazing unofficial stats are far more valuable then scoring goals, I guess they are changing the games now, you win by having a higher corsi number then the other team, not goals anymore.
All these QoC indicate more to ME is the use of coaching strategy more than a player's skill. Why would a coach not take advantage of a situtation that might help the team score a goal or defend a goal? If Ruff thinks that Ennis will possibley net him a goal more than say Gaustad in the offensive zone then why does it have to be a strike against a player? Same thing in the defensive zone. If Ruff feels that Gaustad has a better chance of winning a faceoff or stopping a PP than say Ennis, how does that make Ennis look incapable of playing any type of defense.
Not everybody is a Superb two-way Player. There's probably 5-10 guys in the whole league that can play elite two way play.
When Ennis is NOT in the lineup, IMO, this team doesn't look dangerous at all. When he is out there, he makes things happen. Now that he found linemates that he can use, people want to try and prove that all his goals, assists mean nothing because they are against 2nd and 3rd tier defensemen. He probably has the best hands of the team if not the best.
Complety agree, I think alot comes down to coaching strategy aswell.
I just don't like how the writer tries to suggest that Foligno was the reason for his success.
What? Ennis scores points against weaker competition...trade him! Why would we want a center that can capitalize when the other team's top defenders aren't out
All these QoC indicate more to ME is the use of coaching strategy more than a player's skill. Why would a coach not take advantage of a situtation that might help the team score a goal or defend a goal? If Ruff thinks that Ennis will possibley net him a goal more than say Gaustad in the offensive zone then why does it have to be a strike against a player? Same thing in the defensive zone. If Ruff feels that Gaustad has a better chance of winning a faceoff or stopping a PP than say Ennis, how does that make Ennis look incapable of playing any type of defense.
Not everybody is a Superb two-way Player. There's probably 5-10 guys in the whole league that can play elite two way play.
When Ennis is NOT in the lineup, IMO, this team doesn't look dangerous at all. When he is out there, he makes things happen. Now that he found linemates that he can use, people want to try and prove that all his goals, assists mean nothing because they are against 2nd and 3rd tier defensemen. He probably has the best hands of the team if not the best.
I agree with all of this and it is part of how you fit the advanced stats into analysis, just as advanced stats are part of how you fit statistics into analysis, etc. It all must be considered and, well, no one can ever be too sure of anything
At some point these micro analyzing stats need to stop being used over real production , goals, assists, points.
These are all fine and dandy but who is to say that when Ennis gets tougher minutes next season that he won't produce more? Is there a stat that predicts that? I'm sorry, Ennis scored 34 points in 48 games. He was the former ahl Roty. He led our team in playoff scoring against Boston. I don't think Ennis' accomplishments should be discredited due to stats that are controlled by some web site that is not affiliated with the NHL.
Using this logic, what's better a guy scoring 70 points playing the 12th "hardest" minutes or a guy who scores 40 points but against the "toughest" competition? Who is to say the guy who scores 40 points playing the toughest competition would be able to score 70 then playing the weakest? There is no way to tell and that's why these subjective stats don't tell you more then the real stats, goals + assists.
The majority of advanced statistics are simply re-purposed data from NHL.com, so it's not like they are privately recorded or something.
The data is just scraped and formulas are applied.
I fear that this concept may be difficult for you to grasp, however.
It's much easier to completely ignore them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Jaeger
Admittedly, the folks on this board have taught me a lot about advanced stats. It's new to me as of about two months ago.
With that said, I agree with all of Coller's analysis except for the puck possession.
Corsi is the one stat that I perceive to be misleading, somewhat. It does measure shots for and against while a player is on the ice. That's not a direct translation of puck possession, nor does it measure scoring chances.
When I watch Detroit play, I notice that many of Detroit's scoring chances are very good, due to the skill of their players. There defense is positioned well, mostly, so they may give up shots, but those shots might not be high quality.
In the same way, Ennis' skill and speed put a lot of pressure on opposing defenses, and created a lot of high quality scoring chances. And how many times did we see Ennis wheeling in the offensive zone with opposition unable to get the puck away from him?
I think the corsi = puck possession isn't totally valid, though it's about as close as we can get. And with this point in mind, I don't think that the opposition was able to possess the puck over Buffalo in the way Coller writes about it.
Corsi is actually a fine predictor of both puck possession and scoring chances.
In fact, recent research has shown that it and Fenwick are essentially as accurate as actual recorded scoring chances over larger sample sizes:
Quote:
Whatever tendency certain players might have for driving their team to get more scoring chances than a simple shot differential predicts is small and swamped by random noise. This suggests tracking scoring chances isn't adding much information to the readily available shot differential numbers.
it's not a strike against the player. It's simply context through which their "numbers" should be evaluated
That's fine, but posters on here use these "numbers" to downplay a players stats only for comparing. To me, these stats just tell me who a coach trusts more in a certain situation.
I find it hilarious that these stats are the "IT" thing this season. I don't remember ever hearing about QoC in any other season before this, and it seemed to pop up around the All-Star game.
I'm sorry, but I trust more of what I see on the ice, than what numbers tell me. These numbers just help people prove or disprove someones opinion depending on which way they want to spin them.
Heck, you can say Giroux when he was playing for Philly before he became the #1 center, was playing sheltered minutes. And look how well he has turned out. These QoC should not be used to judge a player's talent level. I can see you might use them as backup for your opinion, but not used soley as your only facts which certain posters on here do sometimes.
At some point, teams will adjust to Ruff having Ennis' line, either with a better checking line or more likely, a better d-pair. The nifty thing there... that could open up ToI for Vanek or Pominville against the weak pair, or simply wear out the opponents top 4 faster. Mis-matches are good thing.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
At some point, teams will adjust to Ruff having Ennis' line, either with a better checking line or more likely, a better d-pair. The nifty thing there... that could open up ToI for Vanek or Pominville against the weak pair, or simply wear out the opponents top 4 faster. Mis-matches are good thing.
Depth builds winners. Those early post-lockout clubs that Ruff guided were successful because of how deep they were. Checking one line leaves another open.
That's fine, but posters on here use these "numbers" to downplay a players stats only for comparing. To me, these stats just tell me who a coach trusts more in a certain situation.
I find it hilarious that these stats are the "IT" thing this season. I don't remember ever hearing about QoC in any other season before this, and it seemed to pop up around the All-Star game.
I'm sorry, but I trust more of what I see on the ice, than what numbers tell me. These numbers just help people prove or disprove someones opinion depending on which way they want to spin them.
Heck, you can say Giroux when he was playing for Philly before he became the #1 center, was playing sheltered minutes. And look how well he has turned out. These QoC should not be used to judge a player's talent level. I can see you might use them as backup for your opinion, but not used soley as your only facts which certain posters on here do sometimes.
Going back a way, they been used to support Hecht as a very good defensive player in previous seasons (his QoC and Corsi numbers are excellent) but similar to the Ennis conversation, the points were simply ignored or shouted over. Ennis did some great things in the last quarter of the season. The context -- who he did them against, what was anomolous about it -- is important, particularly when trying to get a picture of how this team is built and what they may do in the near future.
There isn't a lot of difference between the opinion that Ennis is fabulous (or formerly that Hecht sucks) and being shown measurable perimeters of why those opinions may need tempering.
At some point, teams will adjust to Ruff having Ennis' line, either with a better checking line or more likely, a better d-pair. The nifty thing there... that could open up ToI for Vanek or Pominville against the weak pair, or simply wear out the opponents top 4 faster. Mis-matches are good thing.
I agree, Mis-matches are a good thing. And thats what annoys me most about using these numbers when expressing one's opinion about a player. Who cares who someone went against, if its helping the team, you do it.
And of course, IF that happens then Vanek's and Pominville's QoC will go down...
And we will see people saying Vanek and Pominville have been doing this vs weaker competition.
Like I said earlier, these QoC numbers just show how a coach uses strategy.
The Ennis haters must be lovin this article. There is a reason other teams want Ennis in return from us and I personally wouldn't even trade him for Bobby Ryan straight up. In a league that has seen goal scoring and offense decrease, Ennis is a more dynamic player that makes others on his line better and can control the tempo of a game when he's out there. Sounds crazy right? Don't do it Darcy.
At some point, teams will adjust to Ruff having Ennis' line, either with a better checking line or more likely, a better d-pair. The nifty thing there... that could open up ToI for Vanek or Pominville against the weak pair, or simply wear out the opponents top 4 faster. Mis-matches are good thing.
That's pretty much where it begins and ends with me.
However, anyone on this roster can be had for the right price.
Going back a way, they been used to support Hecht as a very good defensive player in previous seasons (his QoC and Corsi numbers are excellent) but similar to the Ennis conversation, the points were simply ignored or shouted over. Ennis did some great things in the last quarter of the season. The context -- who he did them against, what was anomolous about it -- is important, particularly when trying to get a picture of how this team is built and what they may do in the near future.
There isn't a lot of difference between the opinion that Ennis is fabulous (or formerly that Hecht sucks) and being shown measurable perimeters of why those opinions may need tempering.
Whatever happened to just watching a game and having an opinion off that, instead of looking at numbers?
To this day, I thought Hecht was our best defensive forward for a long time. I did this by watching the game, not by looking at numbers and thinking "oh, Ruff puts Hecht out there on 60% of his shifts in the defensive zone, so that must mean he's our best defensive forward".
But I guess that's what message boards are for huh? To express your opinion and try to shout louder than the others until the other person walks away.
I haven't seen anyone openly state that he isn't talented.
Its just not as cut an dry to everyone that he's destined to be great... There are questions. Valid questions.
And there are those who see him as a valuable chip in a trade scenario rmthat could help the team in another area... Not hate, just a matter of asset management.
Whatever happened to just watching a game and having an opinion off that, instead of looking at numbers?
To this day, I thought Hecht was our best defensive forward for a long time. I did this by watching the game, not by looking at numbers and thinking "oh, Ruff puts Hecht out there on 60% of his shifts in the defensive zone, so that must mean he's our best defensive forward".
But I guess that's what message boards are for huh? To express your opinion and try to shout louder than the others until the other person walks away.
You don't think all those statistics come up in NHL front offices, and at the negotiating tables across the country on Sunday.
They watch the games too... But backing up personal observations with statistical evidence supporting observations is far more valuable than just liking the way a guy looks on the ice.
What would you target in a trade for Ennis? You would have to go for an impact center, right?
Would Stastny be worth it? In Stastny, you're looking at a mildly more accomplished scorer, bigger body, but probably much closer to his ceiling. Would you take Stastny plus a good prospect for Ennis plus a low pick?
I like the analysis given here, and I think it's important to remember Ennis' size and relatively small sample size at center. If his value is high right now, you have to consider your options. Trading low never benefited anybody.
I guess that's the reason he only scored 44 points , I see the light now these amazing unofficial stats are far more valuable then scoring goals, I guess they are changing the games now, you win by having a higher corsi number then the other team, not goals anymore.
