C1958, I am amazed at how you can quote player match ups from 1959 with such authority. Now I was 12 years old at that time and I remember that series well. Especially the 6th game and the 2 missed calls by Red Story that turned over the game to Montreal and the ensuing fan riot. But I sure don't remember the player match ups. Since you are younger than me, I doubt that you remember it from the time. Where do you get your info? Is there a newspaper article out there? If so, link please.
You are 1 - 2 years older.
Neighbour, founder of the association where I started hockey, youth hockey coach, scout had an NHA tryout pre WWI and was active in hockey with contacts well into the 1980's. He used to explain the intricacies and details to kids willing to listen.We were also exposed to his hockey contacts, taken to Canadiens practices,etc. I started youth hockey at the age of five(guess they needed kids to clean the ice) and quickly learned about match-ups, defense etc.
The sample size are small (but team scoring is maybe very stable?) do someone know how signifiant a 11 games samples size stat wise ?
The main difference was the defensive performance of the team and the numbers in the first post show this.
From a hockey viewpoint 11 games is an eternity and strongly dictate how a player's performance is viewed. The game has to be analyzed according to how it is coached and played.
... Time Travel old Son. Have you never been? Starts with Astral Projection. Visualization. The Quiet Room pre-game. Fashbacks. Not difficult pappy but alas, an intangible that escaped the crew in Chicago. You should never have given up on George, Allan, Bobby Baun & Tim Horton. Now here you are, lost, and you expect an answer?. Help?. An explanation?. Im sorry, but your a day late, a dollar short. Next rounds on you.
The sample size are small (but team scoring is maybe very stable?) do someone know how signifiant a 11 games samples size stat wise ?
It would depend on the confidence interval set (just how sure you want to be), but basially it's not very significant. The larger the measured effect, the smaller the sample needs to be in order to be considered significant at the same confidence interval. Generally, I would guess 11 games is very insignificant, in then that all but the most dramatic effects have a significant chance of being due to chance. If there is additional data, it should be considered, as it could increase the sample substantially and so make it more likely to be considered significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
The main difference was the defensive performance of the team and the numbers in the first post show this.
From a hockey viewpoint 11 games is an eternity and strongly dictate how a player's performance is viewed. The game has to be analyzed according to how it is coached and played.
I see two different sets of data presented for the what I believe are the same season. The two do not appear entirely similar:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
1. Without Beliveau and With Richard... 27 games/15H/12A - 14W/5L/8T, 92 GF / 64 GA27 games/15H/12A - 14W/5L/8T, 92 GF / 64 GA
2. With Beliveau and With Richard... 32 games/14H/18A - 21W/6L/5T, 131 GF / 71 GA
3. With Beliveau and Without Richard... 11 games/6H/5A - 7W/3L/1T, 36 GF / 31 GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos
I) With Henri Richard, but Without Jean Béliveau
Overall:
13-8-5 = 34 Points / 26 Games = 1.308 P/G
88-63 Goals = +25 / 26 Games = 3.385-2.423 G/G = +0.962 per Game
II) With Henri Richard and With Jean Béliveau
Overall:
19-4-4 = 42 Points / 27 Games = 1.556 P/G
116-60 Goals = +56 / 27 Games = 4.296-2.222 G/G = +2.074 per Game
III) With Jean Béliveau, but Without Henri Richard
Overall:
11-2-3 = 24 Points / 16 Games = 1.50 P/G
57-34 Goals = +23 / 16 Games = 3.563-2.125 G/G = + 1.438 per Game
IV) Without Henri Richard and Without Jean Béliveau
0-0-1 = 0 Points / 1 Game only
2-5 Goals = - 3 / 1 Game only
Before the effects are considered, the data should be agreed upon.
I see two different sets of data presented for the what I believe are the same season. The two do not appear entirely similar... Before the effects are considered, the data should be agreed upon.
...OK. I agree on your last point there, however, Im having some trouble in understanding your earlier point to C58. With all due respect, Im assuming English is a second or 3rd language for you?. Alliteration can cause misunderstandings as Im sure you can appreciate. Much easier CYM if you just say; "you have 2 different sets of stats for the same season, which is it?". Simplify, use less verbs. Old School Dude like C58 reads that, he goes into orbit, brain doesnt compute. Like reading Sanskrit left by the Aliens for the Summarians. Lost Language. "The two do not appear entirely similar". WTF is that supposed to mean?. Savvy?.
... golly, I wish I could speak Czech, we wouldnt have these problems.
...OK. I agree on your last point there, however, Im having some trouble in understanding your earlier point to C58. With all due respect, Im assuming English is a second or 3rd language for you?. Alliteration can cause misunderstandings as Im sure you can appreciate. Much easier CYM if you just say; "you have 2 different sets of stats for the same season, which is it?". Simplify, use less verbs. Old School Dude like C58 reads that, he goes into orbit, brain doesnt compute. Like reading Sanskrit left by the Aliens for the Summarians. Lost Language. "The two do not appear entirely similar". WTF is that supposed to mean?. Savvy?.
... golly, I wish I could speak Czech, we wouldnt have these problems.
Sorry for the confusion, I can be overly wordy at times.
Two people presented the same data for the same season... yet the two data sets were not close to matching. Is that clear?
I appreciate you clarifying my muddy sentences, just surprised it came from someone apparently known for stream-of-consciousness prose.
The sample size are small (but team scoring is maybe very stable?) do someone know how signifiant a 11 games samples size stat wise ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math
It would depend on the confidence interval set (just how sure you want to be), but basially it's not very significant. The larger the measured effect, the smaller the sample needs to be in order to be considered significant at the same confidence interval. Generally, I would guess 11 games is very insignificant, in then that all but the most dramatic effects have a significant chance of being due to chance. If there is additional data, it should be considered, as it could increase the sample substantially and so make it more likely to be considered significant.
I also think it is obvious that 11 games is very unlikely to be relevant at all and I am amazed that people in this thread try so hard to find any "truth" in them. Because there probably is very little.
I also think it is obvious that 11 games is very unlikely to be relevant at all and I am amazed that people in this thread try so hard to find any "truth" in them. Because there probably is very little.
Agreed, and this is likely additionally complicated if two effects (w/o Richard & w/o Beliveau) are being looked at simultaneously. This decreases the "with both" sample substantially, which would seem to make the comparisons more prone to random error.
I see two different sets of data presented for the what I believe are the same season. The two do not appear entirely similar:
...
Before the effects are considered, the data should be agreed upon.
Indeed. I provide a game-by-game overview so everybody is able to check my data base. Additionally I can back it up with sources:
Jean Béliveau:
-Béliveau missed the first 25 games of the season. The first game he played in was game 26 (December 7th vs Toronto).
Montreal Gazette December 8th: "Jean Beliveau seeing action for the first time this season." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...7069%2C1637814)
-Additionally Beliveau sat out games 59 (March 3rd vs Detroit) and 60 (March 4th @Chicago).
Montreal Gazette March 3rd: "Jean Beliveau...will most likely be out of action for weekend games." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=6642%2C544642)
Montreal Gazette March 5th: "The absence of another centre, Jean Beliveau." (Page 17, can't generate direct link to that page: http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...rontpage&hl=en)
...OK. I agree on your last point there, however, Im having some trouble in understanding your earlier point to C58. With all due respect, Im assuming English is a second or 3rd language for you?. Alliteration can cause misunderstandings as Im sure you can appreciate. Much easier CYM if you just say; "you have 2 different sets of stats for the same season, which is it?". Simplify, use less verbs. Old School Dude like C58 reads that, he goes into orbit, brain doesnt compute. Like reading Sanskrit left by the Aliens for the Summarians. Lost Language. "The two do not appear entirely similar". WTF is that supposed to mean?. Savvy?.
... golly, I wish I could speak Czech, we wouldnt have these problems.
I also think it is obvious that 11 games is very unlikely to be relevant at all and I am amazed that people in this thread try so hard to find any "truth" in them. Because there probably is very little.
And you probably did not read the study of the career performance of Henri Richard vs Bobby Hull linked up thread.
Indeed. I provide a game-by-game overview so everybody is able to check my data base. Additionally I can back it up with sources:
Jean Béliveau:
-Béliveau missed the first 25 games of the season. The first game he played in was game 26 (December 7th vs Toronto).
Montreal Gazette December 8th: "Jean Beliveau seeing action for the first time this season." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...7069%2C1637814)
-Additionally Beliveau sat out games 59 (March 3rd vs Detroit) and 60 (March 4th @Chicago).
Montreal Gazette March 3rd: "Jean Beliveau...will most likely be out of action for weekend games." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=6642%2C544642)
Montreal Gazette March 5th: "The absence of another centre, Jean Beliveau." (Page 17, can't generate direct link to that page: http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...rontpage&hl=en)
Your overview failed to mention that the Canadiens goaltender Jacques Plante was the Hart Trophy winner that season, playing all 70 games and you left out the vital GA impact that Richard missing the last 11 games had on his performance.
Last edited by Canadiens1958: 07-13-2012 at 03:21 AM.
Reason: wording
It would depend on the confidence interval set (just how sure you want to be), but basially it's not very significant. The larger the measured effect, the smaller the sample needs to be in order to be considered significant at the same confidence interval. Generally, I would guess 11 games is very insignificant, in then that all but the most dramatic effects have a significant chance of being due to chance. If there is additional data, it should be considered, as it could increase the sample substantially and so make it more likely to be considered significant.
1972 Summit Series was 8 games. Yet the information gathered from the results or interpreted from the generated statistics is always deemed significant - evidenced by your Euro and population arguments that are found in various threads in the History of Hockey section. Cannot argue sample size importance both ways.
Your overview failed to mention that the Canadiens goaltender Jacques Plante was the Hart Trophy winner that season, playing all 70 games and you left out the vital GA impact that Richard missing the last 11 games had on his performance.
First of all we should straigthen out the actual stats. Right now your numbers and mine don't seem to be in accordance.
PS: Unfortunately I'm not going to be around very much the next couple of days. Don't take offence in case I don't get to post a lot until Monday.
First of all we should straigthen out the actual stats. Right now your numbers and mine don't seem to be in accordance.
PS: Unfortunately I'm not going to be around very much the next couple of days. Don't take offence in case I don't get to post a lot until Monday.
The actual stats - using your phrasing will not change in any significant fashion. The only regular numbers that matter are that the team played 70 games. Their record for the 70 games. Their GF and GA for 70 games And that Jacques Plante was the goalie for 70 games.
Basically you and a few others are simply nitpicking in a very obvious fashion. Like trying to discredit the overall study by raising irrelevent questions of the nature "How do we know that while Jacques Plante gets credit for playing all 70 regular season games he was not pulled for a sixth attacker at times?" Does not matter.
The actual stats - using your phrasing will not change in any significant fashion. The only regular numbers that matter are that the team played 70 games. Their record for the 70 games. Their GF and GA for 70 games And that Jacques Plante was the goalie for 70 games.
Basically you and a few others are simply nitpicking in a very obvious fashion. Like trying to discredit the overall study by raising irrelevent questions of the nature "How do we know that while Jacques Plante gets credit for playing all 70 regular season games he was not pulled for a sixth attacker at times?" Does not matter.
You misunderstand my intention. I'm not trying to discredit the overall study. All I wanted is to get the record straight before we start to draw conclusions.
Without Beliveau and With Richard:
According to your data, 27 (15+12) games, 92-64 goals.
According to my data, 26 (13+13) games, 88-63 goals.
With Beliveau and With Richard:
According to your data, 32 (14+18) games, 131-71 goals.
According to my data, 27 (15+12) games, 116-60 goals.
With Beliveau and Without Richard:
According to your data, 11 (6+5) games, 36-31 goals.
According to my data, 16 (9+7) games, 57-34 goals.
The issue goes beyond "there was one game in which neither Beliveau nor Richard played" and "there is one game too much credited to Richard." 27 games instead of 32 and 116-60 goals instead of 131-71? 16 games instead of 11 and 36-31 goals instead of 57-34? That's a significant discrepancy in my opinion. No nitpicking on my part.
You misunderstand my intention. I'm not trying to discredit the overall study. All I wanted is to get the record straight before we start to draw conclusions.
Without Beliveau and With Richard:
According to your data, 27 (15+12) games, 92-64 goals.
According to my data, 26 (13+13) games, 88-63 goals.
With Beliveau and With Richard:
According to your data, 32 (14+18) games, 131-71 goals.
According to my data, 27 (15+12) games, 116-60 goals.
With Beliveau and Without Richard:
According to your data, 11 (6+5) games, 36-31 goals.
According to my data, 16 (9+7) games, 57-34 goals.
The issue goes beyond "there was one game in which neither Beliveau nor Richard played" and "there is one game too much credited to Richard." 27 games instead of 32 and 116-60 goals instead of 131-71? 16 games instead of 11 and 36-31 goals instead of 57-34? That's a significant discrepancy in my opinion. No nitpicking on my part.
So much for today.
116-60 yields 4.29GF/G, 2.22 GA/G
131-71 yields 4.09 GF/G, 2.19 GA/G
No significant difference <5% offensively and < 2% defensively.
The major difference is the season ending injury which impacted the defensive side of the teams game.
Your claim of offering an overall perspective is weak. Some points about the 1961-62 Canadiens that your research failed to uncover or consider. All verifiable via HR. The team scored 259 goals, the highest total in Toe Blake's tenure as coach and the highest total to that point ever during a 70 game NHL season(topped by the 1966-67 Hawks) despite Jean Beliveau missing a significant part of the season and Bernie Geoffrion being injured and playing long stretches without his center. Actually with a bit of imagination someone so inclined could spin this into Beliveau was overrated since the Canadiens had their best offensive team when he missed the most games.
The 166GA was the 6th best total(GAA/G) during in Blake's tenure Yet defensively they collapsed when Henri Richard was lost for the season.Evidenced by the GAA/G during the last 11 games and further deterioration during the playoffs:
yielding the worst playoff GAA/G during Blake's tenure.
The 11 game sample space is the most revealing since it features a disproportionate number of games against playoff teams that were playoff ready the five games you are adding were not under playoff ready circumstances.
And you probably did not read the study of the career performance of Henri Richard vs Bobby Hull linked up thread.
No I did not read a linked study about that. I did read your linked post about that which was even more conclusions that are over-simplified and statistically unsignificant. But if you want to build a house of sand on sand, be my guest.
I´m not saying Henri did not play a large part (I´m sure he did) but I question how some people draw conclusions about one factor based on small samples heavily affected by many factors.
But nice to see you using the word "probably". It would suit you more often.
No significant difference <5% offensively and < 2% defensively.
So much for my attempt to "discredit the overall study". I'm backing up your argument by providing a larger sample size that is 100% accurate and you are complaining?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
Your claim of offering an overall perspective is weak. Some points about the 1961-62 Canadiens that your research failed to uncover or consider. etc
Maybe the header "1961-1962 Canadiens overview" was misleading. The overview doesn't claim to consider all factors relevant for the performance of the Canadiens throughout the season, it was just supposed to give the accurate numbers and scores for all the Canadiens' games: Those without Beliveau, those without Richard and so on. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
Actually with a bit of imagination someone so inclined could spin this into Beliveau was overrated since the Canadiens had their best offensive team when he missed the most games.
Goals for without Beliveau:
Home: 51 / 13 Games = 3.92 G/G
Away: 39 / 14 Games = 2.79 G/G
Overall: 90 / 27 Games = 3.33 G/G
Projection over 70 Games = 233.1 Goals for
Goals for with Beliveau:
Home: 110 / 24 Games = 4.58 G/G
Away: 63 / 19 Games = 3.32 G/G
Overall: 173 / 43 Games = 4.02 G/G
Projection over 70 Games = 281.4 Goals for
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
The 11 game sample space is the most revealing since it features a disproportionate number of games against playoff teams that were playoff ready the five games you are adding were not under playoff ready circumstances.
So much for my attempt to "discredit the overall study". I'm backing up your argument by providing a larger sample size that is 100% accurate and you are complaining?
Maybe the header "1961-1962 Canadiens overview" was misleading. The overview doesn't claim to consider all factors relevant for the performance of the Canadiens throughout the season, it was just supposed to give the accurate numbers and scores for all the Canadiens' games: Those without Beliveau, those without Richard and so on. Nothing more, nothing less.
Goals for without Beliveau:
Home: 51 / 13 Games = 3.92 G/G
Away: 39 / 14 Games = 2.79 G/G
Overall: 90 / 27 Games = 3.33 G/G
Projection over 70 Games = 233.1 Goals for
Goals for with Beliveau:
Home: 110 / 24 Games = 4.58 G/G
Away: 63 / 19 Games = 3.32 G/G
Overall: 173 / 43 Games = 4.02 G/G
Projection over 70 Games = 281.4 Goals for
What do you mean by playoff ready circumstances?
No such claim was made. My attempts focus on direct simplicity without clutter. Plenty of resources where scores etc.,may be verified.Nice to see posters getting involved. Basic point is that this is a WOWY thread about Henri Richard.
Thar another thread is a spinoff is great and that there is potential for other such threads - WOWY-Beliveau, Plante's 1961-62 Hart, Blake's coaching philosophies is even more encouraging.
Playoff ready circumstances. Last six weeks of the season when teams have set their rosters, established their lines, defensive pairings, PP and PK units, have a building or perception of the first round playoff match-ups,refereeing has stabilized, new rules adapted to, etc.
Last edited by Canadiens1958: 07-14-2012 at 06:28 AM.
Reason: typo/addition.
I appreciate you clarifying my muddy sentences, just surprised it came from someone apparently known for stream-of-consciousness prose.
... no worries. Having re-read my post, looks like my evil twin brother Jack Daniels was at it again. It would appear Im going to have to change my password, log-in & log-out every time I visit from now on. What an idiot eh? Do you believe that guy? And now here I am having to apologize for the umpteenth time to another member.
