PS Roy is not one of the 3 goalies that performed better than his regular season performance statistically
I don't care what stats you want to throw out there about expected production or over performing during the playoffs. There are reasons guys like Shea Weber and Zdeno Chara are on the ice in close games in the crutial minutes.
I don't care what stats you want to throw out there about expected production or over performing during the playoffs. There are reasons guys like Shea Weber and Zdeno Chara are on the ice in close games in the crutial minutes.
That's because they are better players overall... regular season or playoffs...
What? You think they coast in the regular season and kick it up a knotch in the playoffs? or do you think that everyone else just falls apart because an NHL calibre player cracks under the pressure?
It's not what stats I'm throwing out there... it's just that we do not see anyone significantly raising or lowering the bar in big games and you don't see any variance more than the regular season.
Do you beleive everything your government tells you as well?
WTF??? :s
K you are losing me big time...
I don't believe everything I read but if you check this was done as a journal. You can see the steps they did... not some random cherry pick of stats a la gov't styles.
That's because they are better players overall... regular season or playoffs...
What? You think they coast in the regular season and kick it up a knotch in the playoffs? or do you think that everyone else just falls apart because an NHL calibre player cracks under the pressure?
It's not what stats I'm throwing out there... it's just that we do not see anyone significantly raising or lowering the bar in big games and you don't see any variance more than the regular season.
These are profesionals.
Players are not just stats they are personalities. Some personalities show up when it counts. Prime example Crosby terrible Olyimpic tourny but guess what, in the Gold medal game when it really counted the best player in the world put the puck in the net. Is that just coincidence?
Players are not just stats they are personalities. Some personalities show up when it counts. Prime example Crosby terrible Olyimpic tourny but guess what, in the Gold medal game when it really counted the best player in the world put the puck in the net. Is that just coincidence?
Yes. It is.
He played a small sample and everyone has good and bad games.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn't say people were stats. I'm saying that if it was more than just luck/randomness you would see more people being good/bad in big games than you do in the regular season... but you don't.
I don't believe everything I read but if you check this was done as a journal. You can see the steps they did... not some random cherry pick of stats a la gov't styles.
Even Bill James theories have flaws. You just can't keep track of certain traits or intangibles players have.
Even Bill James theories have flaws. You just can't keep track of certain traits or intangibles players have.
No you're right. But you can see the results of those traits or intangibles.
If you have leadership or can elevate other players than you see other players elevated.
You can't use stats as a godsend or to predict the future BUT you can use it to undeniably say that there have not been more people to step it up or crash in big games than there has been out of randomness in regular season.
Yes. It is.
He played a small sample and everyone has good and bad games.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn't say people were stats. I'm saying that if it was more than just luck/randomness you would see more people being good/bad in big games than you do in the regular season... but you don't.
So what. Just because a guy averages a point a game during the season and does roughly the same during the playoffs doesn't mean anything. When were these points generated? First period? Was the point the player got into an empty net? Was it on the power play? Was it in overtime?
So what. Just because a guy averages a point a game during the season and does roughly the same during the playoffs doesn't mean anything. When were these points generated? First period? Was the point the player got into an empty net? Was it on the power play? Was it in overtime?
Huh? and the same oppertunities don't present themselves in the playoffs? LOL
I'm sorry man but this is over.
Huh? and the same oppertunities don't present themselves in the playoffs? LOL
I'm sorry man but this is over.
The same oppurtunities do present themselves. Im saying WHEN during the game a guy generates the point a game he gets is what matters. Not just becaue he got a point a game like he did in some other random game at some other random time.
The same oppurtunities do present themselves. Im saying WHEN during the game a guy generates the point a game he gets is what matters. Not just becaue he got a point a game like he did in some other random game at some other random time.
how often do you think points don't count or the player is getting a point or attempting think "nah this doesn't matter"
I had a feeling someone would jump on me for that one. I simply see distinct similarities in their game. Not aggressive, good vision, poor/slow skating, shy's away from getting hit.
The only difference is Scheifele's size, and that he may still develop into something better (although I doubt it). Whereas Wellwood is clearly no longer improving.
Sorry, this is just how I feel. Scheifele might slightly exceed Wellwood, but minimally if at all IMO.
I started a thread some time ago, entitled Size Isn't Everything, the purpose of which was to defend Enstrom (and to a lesser extent Wellwood) from the flack they were getting from some about their small stature.
But the fact is that size DOES matter and therefore you cannot possibly compare Welly and Scheifele. If Wellwood were 6'3" and 210 lbs (as Scheif may be in a year) he would be more aggressive, hit more, shoot harder, score more...if he had all that plus his existing talent, he'd be AWESOME. He'd be a top 6 centre. That's the potential we have in Scheifele.
Aside from all that...high hockey IQ makes up for a lot of imperfections. Ever watch Gretzky's skating style?
Just give him a little more time, water him, feed him and Mark will turn out fine.
When your losing 5-0 with 5 mins to go in the game.
Crazy comebacks happen and even in minor hockey you play to the end knowing that.
Plus there's pride.
Plus how often do you have landslides like that and for how many minutes in that game was it "unreachable"? So how is that a good indication of anything?
Crazy comebacks happen and even in minor hockey you play to the end knowing that.
Plus there's pride.
Plus how often do you have landslides like that and for how many minutes in that game was it "unreachable"? So how is that a good indication of anything?
etc
Now your reaching alittle bit when it comes to comebacks and pride. 4 plus goal victories in the NHL is not that uncommon.
Crazy comebacks happen and even in minor hockey you play to the end knowing that.
Plus there's pride.
Plus how often do you have landslides like that and for how many minutes in that game was it "unreachable"? So how is that a good indication of anything?
etc
For example we lost to MTL 5-1 in the first game of the season last year. Did Antropov's goal really matter?
Now your reaching alittle bit when it comes to comebacks and pride. 4 plus goal victories in the NHL is not that uncommon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostmaFan1
For example we lost to MTL 5-1 in the first game of the season last year. Did Antropov's goal really matter?
At the time of goal yes. It did.
Although I find your arguments grasping at straws the biggest point is even IF clutch/dissapearing-for-big-games did exist, which all indications point to that they don't... it's impossible to differ it from chance or misconception... so why would you evaluate it.
That's because they are better players overall... regular season or playoffs...
What? You think they coast in the regular season and kick it up a knotch in the playoffs? or do you think that everyone else just falls apart because an NHL calibre player cracks under the pressure?
It's not what stats I'm throwing out there... it's just that we do not see anyone significantly raising or lowering the bar in big games and you don't see any variance more than the regular season.
These are profesionals.
Garret, have you considered that maybe it's not the players that play better or worse, but that the game itself is different. NHL playoffs and 'big' games may select out a certain type of player for greatness-- bigger, feistier, etc--and may give less room for others to excel. In that sense, it may have nothing to do with choking or kicking it up a notch--more like playing tennis on grass vs clay.
Although I find your arguments grasping at straws the biggest point is even IF clutch/dissapearing-for-big-games did exist, which all indications point to that they don't... it's impossible to differ it from chance or misconception... so why would you evaluate it.
Poor Mark Scheifele. IMO I don't think he'll ever live up to his draft status and that's not his fault at all. It's not his fault that there was one organization that loved him much more than others did. This reminds me of a book I've read before..."The Ugly Duckling" Obviously he still has time to make Chevy look like a genius, but if he doesn't he'll always be available to scrutiny.
Poor Mark Scheifele. IMO I don't think he'll ever live up to his draft status and that's not his fault at all. It's not his fault that there was one organization that loved him much more than others did. This reminds me of a book I've read before..."The Ugly Duckling" Obviously he still has time to make Chevy look like a genius, but if he doesn't he'll always be available to scrutiny.
Garret, have you considered that maybe it's not the players that play better or worse, but that the game itself is different. NHL playoffs and 'big' games may select out a certain type of player for greatness-- bigger, feistier, etc--and may give less room for others to excel. In that sense, it may have nothing to do with choking or kicking it up a notch--more like playing tennis on grass vs clay.
Possible. But I still just think that it's better players are used more in big time minutes and therefore get the bigger oppertunities.
The point is you can't use a 6 game tournament as a proper sample for determining "clutch", whether or not it exists. So, this coming WJC Scheifele can be #1 or can bomb and it would still not mean he's a star or bust.
Actually someone mentioned him in the comment section... and he ran the annalysis on him and Claude was right within reason... so yes... he's nothing different.
Quote:
We don't have TOI for all of his career, so I can't use exactly the same model for him, but more crudely just looking at points per game, he averaged 0.65 PPG during the regular season, so over 234 playoff games we might expect 151 points from him.
He actually had 158.
Nothing special.
(And we don't need the correction for reduced scoring in the playoffs when we look at points per game instead of points per minute -- to within about two percent, having more minutes per game in the playoffs already counterbalances the reduced scoring rate. See: http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...layoff-scoring )
You keep bringing up people and I keep showing you it's not true for them, but even if you did find someone it wouldn't matter because that would still not prove it's not just natural life variance, hot/cold streak or, as Paradise pointed out, just the game played out to their individual skills.
