HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Some of our team stats look really bad...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-19-2013, 06:35 AM
  #151
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I know exactly what the stats mean. Its not hard to discern. I was stating Qualcomp out of brevity being that I'm not writing an English essay.

My response is meant to denote that looking at who the opponents are early in a season, and ranking the top ordinal opponents, is less important factor in toi spent then looking at who the team mates are. I'm not sure how you would disagree. Unless one could see the top 50 or so opponents the list as is(top 8) is somewhat anecdotal and likely doesn't tell the whole story. What the opponent list does indicate that in the case of the SJ Sharks or AV's that theres some matching. See what I mean?
You have said on at least two occasions in response to my posts about time on ice that Qualcomp is not a stat that is valid for small sample sizes.

The first was here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
From behind the net:

Top opponets 5v5

Nuge: MARC-EDOUARD VLASIC 15.8, BRAD STUART 15.1, JOE THORNTON 13.7, PATRICK MARLEAU 13.4, JOE PAVELSKI 13.2, PIERRE PARENTEAU 12.8, MATT DUCHENE 12.7, JAMIE MCGINN 10.2 JAY BOUWMEESTER 9.5, ERIK JOHNSON 9.5

Gagner: PAUL STASTNY 15.4, DAN BOYLE 14.9, MATTHEW IRWIN 14.4, JOHN MITCHELL 10.3, ROMAN CERVENKA 9.5, RYANE CLOWE 9.4, RYAN WILSON 9.0, RYAN O'BYRNE 8.8, JAMIE MCGINN 8.8, JIRI HUDLER 8.6

I am not really comparing Gagner vs RNH specifically but chose them because they represent their lines.

This looks to me to be pretty strong evidence that the first line is seeing top notch opposition, and to me they are holding their own very well. They also saw an awful lot of OEL against Phoenix. This is a massive change from how that line was handled last year.

The second line is getting more of a dog's breakfast as far as who they play against. I have no problem with this because as they learn to work together I think this works well for the Oilers.

Right now they are 8th in the WC in goals for despite the fact that they have played 7 gmes against traditionally very good defensive teams. San Jose has given up 14 goals in 8 game (5 to Edmonton), Vancouver is tied for 3rd in the West in GA, Colorado was top 8 in the West last year and are tied for 3rd in the West and 10th in the league in GA this year. Phoenix had problems this year but Johnson has only given up 2 goals in two games, both to the Oilers. LA is LA. They don't give up much.

Behind the Net stats like Qualcomp were never meant to be quoted after very limited game samples and there used to be a disclaimer on that if there isn't still.
My post was in response to

Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
yup, they are getting all the top assignments, playing against the other teams top line - and winning... how this isn't evident is beyond me.... they are already outplaying the other teams top-lines most nights, at an average age of 20.5 or so

the problem with this teams scoring is in the bottom 6, not the top 6
The sole point was to provide some practical evidence to back up jadeddog's claim. And until Baby Nilsson provided us the link to that great resource this was the best we had.

In the end what is most ironic is that unlike Qualcomp which does have issues with small sample sizes, the stats that I quoted are actually more meaningful early in the season.

As to opponents vs linemates, I actually think both are important. But the statistical evidence debunking your claims that first it was all Whitney's fault and then it was the Justin Schultz factor had already been provided. Indeed, we now have even more evidence to support this. So all I was doing was to show that not only are the defensive issues attributed to Gagner and the second line on their own shoulders, but in fact the "sheltered" first line is actually getting the tough assignments. And I did this not by using some manipulation of +/- but by showing who they actually played against.

And I do recognize that the TOI data I posted was not complete. Though the two sets you objected to cover 9 of the Oilers 14 games. In this case we now have the near complete story which backs up completely the assertions that jadeddog and I made. (see the links below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post


The first game against the Nucks I could swear Sedins were matched against Gagner line and that they've had some first line matching in other games as well. I don't discount theres likely more games where topline is going against topline but I don't know its always the case.
This is where much of the problem lies. You also knew for sure that Gagner's line had been stuck with Whitney and Potter so much more than the first line had. This was the reason for Gganer's higher goals against. YOu claimed this was obvious. And then bob pretty much put this fallacy to rest.

So lets see whether what you say above is true.

It turns out that Gagner has played all of 6:22 against Henrik Sedin in the two games the Oilers have played the Canucks. In comparison RNH has had him for 13:33 minutes.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5

Now even if all of the time he played against Henrik was in the first game, which is extremely unlikely, we would still be talking about less than half of the time Gagner was on the ice.

So while your perception is that Gagner matched up against the Sedin's the reality is that he played very little against them.



This is where much of the problem that you and I have stems from. In the last couple of years you have taken to making claims that you can't back up but insist on saying that these claims result from you closely observing the play. More so you claim that those of us who see it differently are driven by an agenda. We all do this to a degree but my issue arises when you are presented clear and unrefutable evidence that your views are wrong. Rather than simply conceding the point as you say you would, you tend to reference "spurious logic", ignore the obvious, or find some other twisted way of skirting the truth.

A recent example of the latter was the strange manipulations of the GAON/60 stats that you did which bob so clearly showed made no sense. Rather than acknowldging that what you wrote was nonesense you still claimed that you had indeed made your point re the mysterious Schultz factor. And guess what, the stats actually show that when playing with Schultz Gagners GA/20 number is 1.02 which is almost identical to his overall number.

The Replacement that I enjoyed sparing with in the past would not have done that but would rather have admitted his error and gone on.


Last edited by Fourier: 02-19-2013 at 06:42 AM.
Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 03:23 PM
  #152
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post


The sole point was to provide some practical evidence to back up jadeddog's claim. And until Baby Nilsson provided us the link to that great resource this was the best we had.

In the end what is most ironic is that unlike Qualcomp which does have issues with small sample sizes, the stats that I quoted are actually more meaningful early in the season.
What you quoted was select instances of player matching. You've attempted to build generalized comments from there. More on that later.

Quote:
As to opponents vs linemates, I actually think both are important.
Except that obviously at this point in time, and with limited sample of games played, its more evident what patterns take place in a teams own unit matching vs how opponents are matching against us. If this isn't clear theres 14GP where one can note who is playing with whom WITHIN the club. Theres instances of 1,2 games where one can note opponent matching. With the latter representing such short duration time frames and often little differentiation in the toi numbers.

Quote:
But the statistical evidence debunking your claims that first it was all Whitney's fault and then it was the Justin Schultz factor had already been provided.
While you call it "debunking" perhaps you don't realize I was reacting to multiple claims made that the impact of a J Schultz or a Whitney would be "negligible". When in fact either would have a statistically significant impact on GA during their toi. In J Schultz's case I've pointed out that 1.03 LESS GA/60mins are scored anytime he's on the ice. This was a HUGE differential. (which has since changed)
Conversely any time R Whitney is on the ice More GA occur and to a statistically significant level. Even though you call these negligible differences. If they were so negligible I would wonder why the commitment to pairing on the club is so evident. For instance when this discussion started topline was getting J Schultz 49% of the time and 2nd line were getting him only 35% of the time.

Next, you claim that my statement that Whitney was being put out with 2nd line most often false. You claim that Bob corrected me on this. I noted to Bob that Whitney had been benched for two of the games and so that has to be considered. Bob mistakenly looked up the Gagner column and noted that he'd played with Whitney less than some of the other D. (but only because of the benched games interfering with the stat) but if we look directly at the Whitney column(which is what Bob should have been looking at) we see indeed that all along I'm correct and that Whitney is most matched with 2nd line.


Quote:
Indeed, we now have even more evidence to support this. So all I was doing was to show that not only are the defensive issues attributed to Gagner and the second line on their own shoulders, but in fact the "sheltered" first line is actually getting the tough assignments. And I did this not by using some manipulation of +/- but by showing who they actually played against.
You showed select instances of opponent matching to suit your argument.

Quote:
And I do recognize that the TOI data I posted was not complete. Though the two sets you objected to cover 9 of the Oilers 14 games. In this case we now have the near complete story which backs up completely the assertions that jadeddog and I made. (see the links below).
I'm not sure how 9 games are covered. Afairc you've hilited Vancouver, LA, and I believe Colorado. You could be more clear on which games and which opponents you feel it is quite clear that the topline is getting much harder minutes. Then I can rebut.



Quote:
This is where much of the problem lies. You also knew for sure that Gagner's line had been stuck with Whitney and Potter so much more than the first line had. This was the reason for Gganer's higher goals against. YOu claimed this was obvious. And then bob pretty much put this fallacy to rest.
What I'm guilty of is overstating(hyperbole) that the J Schultz/R Whitney differentials in matching would make up the difference in GA. This factor doesn't make up all the difference but its not been negligible either. I think myself, and others, have been guilty of some distortions in how they comment on the data. In anycase I was never wrong that the 2nd line were stuck more often with Whitney and the first line had more of J Schultz. You like to make it sound like I'm wrong period.

Quote:
So lets see whether what you say above is true.

It turns out that Gagner has played all of 6:22 against Henrik Sedin in the two games the Oilers have played the Canucks. In comparison RNH has had him for 13:33 minutes.
Daniel Sedin ftr had 7something minutes against 2nd line. Look, the first game was in Vancouver, Vancouver has last line change, and even during the telecast they were noting the matchup that the Nucks had matched Sedins vs the Gagner line. This was also being observed. Did it change up through the course of that first game? Possibly. But the above minutes does not prove my statement wrong as the Sedins WERE being matched against the Gagner line during the first game.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5

Quote:
Now even if all of the time he played against Henrik was in the first game, which is extremely unlikely, we would still be talking about less than half of the time Gagner was on the ice.

So while your perception is that Gagner matched up against the Sedin's the reality is that he played very little against them.
7mins at proper 45 second shifts= 9.5shifts. Not "very little".



Quote:
This is where much of the problem that you and I have stems from. In the last couple of years you have taken to making claims that you can't back up but insist on saying that these claims result from you closely observing the play. More so you claim that those of us who see it differently are driven by an agenda. We all do this to a degree but my issue arises when you are presented clear and unrefutable evidence that your views are wrong. Rather than simply conceding the point as you say you would, you tend to reference "spurious logic", ignore the obvious, or find some other twisted way of skirting the truth.
In this YOU are guilty of making a very general statement, attack really, on my posting history here. Being that your comments are so vague and general you know that I can't rebut for lack of specifics but you see fit to make the above statement anyway. How is this helpful to the exchange? Does it feel better to dismissively conclude I make no valid claims?

Lets look at some of your claims previously in this discussion. Theres statements to the effect that the topline are getting all of the hard matching, that they are seeing the toplines of other opponents every night. Well what about the name Pavel Datsyuk, widely considered to be the best pure center in hockey. Guess who got that matchup in that game? Gagner. How about Gagner seeing Jagr, Benn, Erikkson, Roy, Stastny, Hejduk, couture, Hudler, etc. Some of these could be considered first line opponents or not. On some teams as with ours, its not so crystal clear all the time who first line is or not. Or if its 1A, 1B. Sometimes the dropoff isn't that much in anycase. Note as well in cases where the differences in opponent toi are very little between 1st and 2nd line that by and large 1st line will be seeing more EV minutes against other toplines just on the basis of PLAYING 2-3 more EV minutes/night. This skews the opponent stats a little.

Quote:
A recent example of the latter was the strange manipulations of the GAON/60 stats that you did which bob so clearly showed made no sense. Rather than acknowldging that what you wrote was nonesense you still claimed that you had indeed made your point re the mysterious Schultz factor. And guess what, the stats actually show that when playing with Schultz Gagners GA/20 number is 1.02 which is almost identical to his overall number.
I tried to make the post you refer to as sensible as possible but I've struggling with the flu, I'm not at my best, and it can impact how clearly I think or communicate. Looks like I didn't convey that post properly and nobody understood what I was trying to get at. I own that in that case.

But as far as using stats like GA/20mins or even GA/60mins the main problem is that not enough minutes are in yet. So in a lot of instances we're really arguing about random air and noise at this point. I'll demonstrate this succinctly. A lot has been discussed in these exchanges about Gagners EV GA this year. Currently sitting at 3.33/60mins. High, correct. But does anybody in this exchange think these numbers are valid, representative, or will continue? If so Gagner over a complete season last year was 2.22GA/60mins and with the least GA of any regular forward on the club.

So guess what my frustration level rises to when I check the board and see another 50 posts from people(not saying you but collectively, different posters) claiming Gagner is "Bad" defensively.

The reason I reacted to some of this in the first place is that I know the current Gagner GA are uncharacteristic of him now and where his game is at.

Quote:
The Replacement that I enjoyed sparing with in the past would not have done that but would rather have admitted his error and gone on.
Above I've acknowledge the parts where I'm off but again I feel everybody has misrepresented the data, and that in general way too much is being made of GA to this point, so early in a season. A couple EV GA here or there skew the numbers so much right now due to the limited sample size. Even more so this year as EV play has been less represented due to the inordinate amount of penalties called thus far this season.

Hope this clarifies a little.


Last edited by Replacement: 02-19-2013 at 03:57 PM.
Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 03:32 PM
  #153
Dorian2
The bag don't lie.
 
Dorian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,587
vCash: 50
And in other news, Rocket scientists are now posting on HF Oiler boards.

Just kidding..I love it when Replacement and Fourier go toe to toe!

Dorian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 03:34 PM
  #154
Senor Catface
Registered User
 
Senor Catface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Nepal
Posts: 6,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Its all Hemsky's, Yakupov's, Omark's, Penner's, Paajarvi's, Belanger's, Cogliano's, Nilsson's fault.
That isn't enough. There has to be MORE we can blame.

Senor Catface is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 03:39 PM
  #155
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by President Van Buren View Post
That isn't enough. There has to be MORE we can blame.
The internet.

Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 03:52 PM
  #156
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian2 View Post
And in other news, Rocket scientists are now posting on HF Oiler boards.

Just kidding..I love it when Replacement and Fourier go toe to toe!
Rocket Scientist! Why don't you just tell everyone I'm a toll booth attendant...

Sheldon Cooper: Big Bang Theory


Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 06:13 PM
  #157
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Except that obviously at this point in time, and with limited sample of games played, its more evident what patterns take place in a teams own unit matching vs how opponents are matching against us. If this isn't clear theres 14GP where one can note who is playing with whom WITHIN the club. Theres instances of 1,2 games where one can note opponent matching. With the latter representing such short duration time frames and often little differentiation in the toi numbers.
You keep saying this. But we now have indisputable evidence to show that the pattern is that the first line has played virtually every game against the opponents best offensive line. Here are the most common opponents when Nuge played

San Jose (2 games) Marleau, Thorton, Pavelski
Colorado (3 games) Duchene, Parenteau, McQuinn
Vancouver (2 games) Sedin, Sedin, XXX
Calgary (1 game) Iginla, Tanguay, Glencross
Phoenix (1 game) Vermette, Doan, XXX
Columbus (1 game) Umberger, Brassard, Dorsett
Detroit (1 game) Brunner, Zetterberg, Fransen
LA (1 game) No real pattern
Dallas (1 game) Morrow, Benn, Jagr

There you go. 13 games played and the most common opponent for the first line was the other teams first line in 12 of those games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

While you call it "debunking" perhaps you don't realize I was reacting to multiple claims made that the impact of a J Schultz or a Whitney would be "negligible". When in fact either would have a statistically significant impact on GA during their toi. In J Schultz's case I've pointed out that 1.03 LESS GA/60mins are scored anytime he's on the ice. This was a HUGE differential. (which has since changed)
Conversely any time R Whitney is on the ice More GA occur and to a statistically significant level. Even though you call these negligible differences. If they were so negligible I would wonder why the commitment to pairing on the club is so evident. For instance when this discussion started topline was getting J Schultz 49% of the time and 2nd line were getting him only 35% of the time.
Read Bob's post again responding to your manipulation of this data. It actually shows what the proper statistical impact of the time difference would be even if you assumed that Schultz was the guy driving the lower goal total. And they are indeed negligible.

The argument you presented to support your position involved a bunch of completely unjustifiable manipulations of averages. Bob again showed why this was quite simply mathematically wrong!!!

You now say you had the flu, which I am sorry to hear. But rather than admitting that you have no statistical evidence to support your position, or even more so that the stats actually contradict your assertion, you insisted on clinging to your point.

Of course one might also just as easily pose the hypothesis that Schultz's numbers were better than other dmen because he plays more with the more defensivley responsible first line, something that you would clearly reject. And guess what. With respect to GAON/60, the stat that you were trying to show Shultz's impact on, when Gagner has actually played with Schultz, Gagner's numbers are no different than they are with all defensemen combined.

As to Whitney, I have no idea why you keep bringing up this stuff about him being benched. When he is benched he did not play with the first line either. The point is that in terms of actual time on the ice, Whitney played roughly the same amount with both the first line and with the second. Yet you still want to ignore this fact.

Why would Whitney be a bigger drag on the second line than he is on the first in roughly the same amount of time. Could it be because they first line is better at covering up his issues?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
You showed select instances of opponent matching to suit your argument.

I'm not sure how 9 games are covered. Afairc you've hilited Vancouver, LA, and I believe Colorado. You could be more clear on which games and which opponents you feel it is quite clear that the topline is getting much harder minutes. Then I can rebut.
Of course I posted evidence to support my position. That was the point. What I did not do is cherry pick the data. I posted the data that was available at the time. we now have much more complete data which completley agrees with my assertion.

As to my claim that the data covered 9 games, the two sets included info on 3 Colorado games, 2 Vancouver games, 2 SJ games as well as info from the games against Calgary and Phoenix, though I am happy to admit that the data from the last Calgary and Phoenix games came from a post on the main board I believe.

So we had 9 games of the 13 that RNH played. Not a complete summary but since all of the arrows pointed in the same direction this looked to me to be strong eveidence in support of the claim.

In contrast, all you provided were some recollections, which I will show below were incorrect, which lead to some sort of scenario about shifts with Daniel Sedin played against Gagner's line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
What I'm guilty of is overstating(hyperbole) that the J Schultz/R Whitney differentials in matching would make up the difference in GA. This factor doesn't make up all the difference but its not been negligible either. I think myself, and others, have been guilty of some distortions in how they comment on the data. In anycase I was never wrong that the 2nd line were stuck more often with Whitney and the first line had more of J Schultz. You like to make it sound like I'm wrong period.
No one ever disbuted that the first line played more with Schultz than the second. And it is clear that the stats I posted acknowledeged that the second line had Whitney about 3 more minutes over 10 game. This is roughy 20 seconds per game. All I ever said, and bob's post stated this directly, is that the Whitney issue is not a factor in distinguishing the two.

As to Schultz, why this is negligible has now been explained several times.

Moreover, the first line played more absolute even strength minutes yet they have given up fewer goals by almost 1/2. In fact, the difference in total ES time between the first and second lines is actually quite close to the difference in time that they have spent with Schultz over the second line. So unless you can explain how this extra time with Schultz the first line actually resulted in a negative number of goals scored I don't see how you can continue to beat this drum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post


Daniel Sedin ftr had 7something minutes against 2nd line. Look, the first game was in Vancouver, Vancouver has last line change, and even during the telecast they were noting the matchup that the Nucks had matched Sedins vs the Gagner line. This was also being observed. Did it change up through the course of that first game? Possibly. But the above minutes does not prove my statement wrong as the Sedins WERE being matched against the Gagner line during the first game.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5

7mins at proper 45 second shifts= 9.5shifts. Not "very little".
Again, you refuse to admit that you are probably wrong despite all the evidence pointing against you. Instead you talk about things you remember and bring up some made up scenario with no evidence to show that it actually happened.

Go to NHL.com and bring up the recap of that game. Under the box score tab you can find a tab that lists each player's time on the ice. If you compare Gagner with Henrik Sedin, who is the center on the line what you find is that in the first period they were on the line together exactly once out of the 8 shifts that Sedin took. ANd a total of three times in 18 shifts in the first two periods. Does this sound like the line matching you were describing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Lets look at some of your claims previously in this discussion. Theres statements to the effect that the topline are getting all of the hard matching, that they are seeing the toplines of other opponents every night.

Well what about the name Pavel Datsyuk, widely considered to be the best pure center in hockey. Guess who got that matchup in that game? Gagner. How about Gagner seeing Jagr, Benn, Erikkson, Roy, Stastny, Hejduk, couture, Hudler, etc. Some of these could be considered first line opponents or not. On some teams as with ours, its not so crystal clear all the time who first line is or not. Or if its 1A, 1B. Sometimes the dropoff isn't that much in anycase. Note as well in cases where the differences in opponent toi are very little between 1st and 2nd line that by and large 1st line will be seeing more EV minutes against other toplines just on the basis of PLAYING 2-3 more EV minutes/night. This skews the opponent stats a little.
I never suggested that Gagner's line never saw decent linemates.
Of course they will. But the reality is that while Datsuyk is a great player, this year Detroit's first line in the Zetterberg line. And in the one game that Nuge played against Dallas, his line saw Benn's line the most.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
But as far as using stats like GA/20mins or even GA/60mins the main problem is that not enough minutes are in yet. So in a lot of instances we're really arguing about random air and noise at this point. I'll demonstrate this succinctly. A lot has been discussed in these exchanges about Gagners EV GA this year. Currently sitting at 3.33/60mins. High, correct. But does anybody in this exchange think these numbers are valid, representative, or will continue? If so Gagner over a complete season last year was 2.22GA/60mins and with the least GA of any regular forward on the club.
I have already said that GAON/60 does not tell a complete story. I also know the limitations in the stats. In this case though these numbers are simply a proxy for who was where when goals were scored.

What this data serves to do is to provide statistical evidence to either help back up or refute claims. When all the evidence points in one direction it makes a compelling case. Of course someone could ask the Oiler's coaches to break down the film for us, but I think I know where that will get us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
So guess what my frustration level rises to when I check the board and see another 50 posts from people(not saying you but collectively, different posters) claiming Gagner is "Bad" defensively.

The reason I reacted to some of this in the first place is that I know the current Gagner GA are uncharacteristic of him now and where his game is at.

Above I've acknowledge the parts where I'm off but again I feel everybody has misrepresented the data, and that in general way too much is being made of GA to this point, so early in a season. A couple EV GA here or there skew the numbers so much right now due to the limited sample size. Even more so this year as EV play has been less represented due to the inordinate amount of penalties called thus far this season.

Hope this clarifies a little.
This part of your post I can accept. I highlited the bolded part because it represents an opinion that I think could have been your response to the whole debate. Where you have lost me is in all the convoluted claims you have made to try and explain why what has actually happened is everyone else's fault. Moreover, I honestly do not think it helps your case in support of Gagner to make claims like your suggestion that the first line has been sheltered or that they have only been decent defensively because of Schultz.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 07:08 PM
  #158
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,289
vCash: 500
I don't have time right now to respond to everything in your post and it just starts getting too convuluted. Lets look at below so we can get down to brasstacks. I've bolded the instances I can agree with. Put parentheses in the ones that are off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
You keep saying this. But we now have indisputable evidence to show that the pattern is that the first line has played virtually every game against the opponents best offensive line. Here are the most common opponents when Nuge played

San Jose (2 games) Marleau, Thorton, Pavelski
Colorado (3 games) Duchene, Parenteau, McQuinn
Vancouver (2 games) Sedin, Sedin, XXX
Calgary (1 game) Iginla, Tanguay, Glencross
Phoenix (1 game) Vermette, Doan, XXX(As much as Doan is always the guy this is a scoring by committee team. Actually Hanzal, Vrbata, Boedker is the more potent scoring line. just saying.)
Columbus (1 game) Umberger, Brassard, Dorsett(with all due respect Columbus doesn't even have a topline imo. These are not typical topline opponents. )
Detroit (1 game) Brunner, Zetterberg, Fransen(Datsyuk, Fillupula, Kronwall are arguably just as good. In anycase exactly what I mean by a 1A, 1B configuration. Most important point being Datsyuk is arguably the best player in the world at the Center position. Gagner had the tough Datsyuk assignment)
LA (1 game) No real pattern
Dallas (1 game) Morrow, Benn, Jagr(Not sure what you're saying with this. Gagner saw way more minutes in that game against Benn, Jagr, Morrow. I think you need to recheck this)

There you go. 13 games played and the most common opponent for the first line was the other teams first line in 12 of those games.
So there you go. Not all of the above is as clear as you make it sound, and these are the case instances you've used to demonstrate your point that the topline is seeing appreciably harder opposition every night. Its less pronounced a difference then you make it sound. Like I say I agree with the bolded instances above but other than that..

As far as you last part on my convulutions, gawd, if you discover a cure for that one let me know. lol guilty, as charged..haha

Sometimes I just need to stick to the most obvious thing but which often comes to me later..


Last edited by Replacement: 02-19-2013 at 07:16 PM.
Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 07:12 PM
  #159
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Most important point being Datsyuk is arguably the best player in the world at the Center position
Not to derail, but arguable indeed:


worraps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 07:19 PM
  #160
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
Not to derail, but arguable indeed:

Not sure what you're saying with this. Among players, or the press Datsyuk is commonly sited as the best pure all round, two way center in the game. Just a fantastic student of the game and hard to play against. They were talking about that again in the telecast when we played Detroit. This guy is A Selke winner or finalist nearly every year. Datsyuk is the definition of an outscorer. Probably the most effective player in hockey.

Datsyuk +/- career = +214 lol.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...tar-peers.html


Last edited by Replacement: 02-19-2013 at 07:30 PM.
Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 07:32 PM
  #161
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Not sure what you're saying with this. Among players, or the press Datsyuk is commonly sited as the best pure all round, two way center in the game. Just a fantastic student of the game and hard to play against. They were talking about that again in the telecast when we played Detroit. This guy is A Selke winner or finalist nearly every year.
Players respect his two-way game, skills, and the way he carries himself. Malkin and Crosby are both better centres.

Gretzky and Lemieux were better centers than Steve Yzerman, despite the fact that no one would ever accuse them of being Selke candidates.

I suppose your overrating of the defensively ingenious Pavel Datsyuk balances out your overrating of the defensively incompetent Sam Gagner.

worraps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 07:35 PM
  #162
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I don't have time right now to respond to everything in your post and it just starts getting too convuluted. Lets look at below so we can get down to brasstacks. I've bolded the instances I can agree with. Put parentheses in the ones that are off.



So there you go. Not all of the above is as clear as you make it sound, and these are the case instances you've used to demonstrate your point that the topline is seeing appreciably harder opposition every night. Its less pronounced a difference then you make it sound. Like I say I agree with the bolded instances above but other than that..

As far as you last part on my convulutions, gawd, if you discover a cure for that one let me know. lol guilty, as charged..haha

Sometimes I just need to stick to the most obvious thing but which often comes to me later..
Wrt to the Benn line I did look it up.

Gagner played 7:45 against Benn over two games. RNH played 5:02 in one game. Hall saw Benn's line just under 12 minutes in two games.

Phoenix I will give you.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 07:35 PM
  #163
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
Players respect his two-way game, skills, and the way he carries himself. Malkin and Crosby are both better centres.

Gretzky and Lemieux were better centers than Steve Yzerman, despite the fact that no one would ever accuse them of being Selke candidates.

I suppose your overrating of the defensively ingenious Pavel Datsuyk balances out your overrating of the defensively incompetent Sam Gagner.
Mine is not an isolated opinion. Most players would respect Pavels complete game more than say Malkin or Crosby who tend more to be all about the offence.

Detroit raises players a whole lot better than the Pittsburgh Penguins do.

Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 07:42 PM
  #164
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
Wrt to the Benn line I did look it up.

Gagner played 7:45 against Benn over two games. RNH played 5:02 in one game. Hall saw Benn's line just under 12 minutes in two games.
OK, I guess that would be the game RNH missed. I need a new memory card or floppy drive or something..

Thing is though the topline plays on average 2-3 extra EV minutes /night so the first line/second line proportion of time spent against Benn would be more similar.

Its a given that topline faces EVERYBODY more at ES because they play the most ES minutes. just a minor quibble.

Anyway back to trying to get some work done. Thanks for the exchange.

Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:06 PM
  #165
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,289
vCash: 500
Bump. Calling bs on behind the net numbers.

Amazing that so many people count this as a holy grail of information yet its so haphazardly updated. Far from the first time I've noticed this.

Case in point. The LA game was NEVER tabulated into the stats. They totally forgot about it. Nobody entered it. period. Topline was -3 on the night and had 3 ES goals scored against. The players remained with the same GA totals. Yet strangely last nights game was updated.

Next time people treat these numbers as gospel pay attention to whether it actually is. Any other site lists RNH with 11 GA. on behind the net its 7. It was 7 before the LA game.

I could see if somebody didn't have time to update regularly, thats fine, but to totally miss games is inexcusable.

Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:23 PM
  #166
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,938
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
He's a goner.

Now that Katz has his arena deal hammered out, all the focus from the ownership now is going to be solely on getting a winning team.
As long as K-Lowe is riding shotgun there's no way that's going to make any difference.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:32 PM
  #167
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,156
vCash: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Mine is not an isolated opinion. Most players would respect Pavels complete game more than say Malkin or Crosby who tend more to be all about the offence.

Detroit raises players a whole lot better than the Pittsburgh Penguins do.
Crosby is the most complete package in the game and it's not close. When the kid is on top of his game he doesn't have to play defense because the puck is always in the opposition end.

raab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:42 PM
  #168
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
Crosby is the most complete package in the game and it's not close. When the kid is on top of his game he doesn't have to play defense because the puck is always in the opposition end.
Well, nobody has seen very much of that Sidney Crosby for years. 3 yrs ago I would've agreed with you. Its terrible whats happened to Crosby with all the injuries.

Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 12:10 AM
  #169
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,156
vCash: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Well, nobody has seen very much of that Sidney Crosby for years. 3 yrs ago I would've agreed with you. Its terrible whats happened to Crosby with all the injuries.
He hasn't played very much in the last 2 years, and comes back and is tied for the lead in the points scoring race. Wait till he gets back into the swing of things, he'll look ridiculous again.

raab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 09:41 AM
  #170
Red Deer Rebel
Registered User
 
Red Deer Rebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 2,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Bump. Calling bs on behind the net numbers.

Amazing that so many people count this as a holy grail of information yet its so haphazardly updated. Far from the first time I've noticed this.

Case in point. The LA game was NEVER tabulated into the stats. They totally forgot about it. Nobody entered it. period. Topline was -3 on the night and had 3 ES goals scored against. The players remained with the same GA totals. Yet strangely last nights game was updated.

Next time people treat these numbers as gospel pay attention to whether it actually is. Any other site lists RNH with 11 GA. on behind the net its 7. It was 7 before the LA game.

I could see if somebody didn't have time to update regularly, thats fine, but to totally miss games is inexcusable.
I'm sure he uses a crawler to mine data off the NHL site, and doesn't put these numbers in manually, but you are right - that site is pretty much an amateurish mess.

I've noticed errors before, and this one comes to mind: Look at Rob Schremp's +/- on the nhl.com website for the 2008/09 season => +2.

On behindthenet.ca, it is 0.

I went through the official Game Reports at the time (for the 4 games in question), and behindthenet was wrong.

I mention this because I noticed this discrepancy back when BBO was getting in Schremp debates, and his detractors kept quoting the inaccurate stats from behindthenet. The comments section on Lowetide's blog is a major offender in citing this garbage as well.

Glad you brought this up, because the "stats experts" both here and on the Oilogosphere have never noticed this stuff, even though they are constantly quoting it - which raises concerns about their own competence. This topic is worthy of its own thread, actually.

As the old adage goes: "Garbage in, garbage out" - and this pretty much summarizes behindthenet.

ps. For ease of reference, here are the links to the 4 official Game Reports showing Schremp with a net +2 at even-strength for the 2008-09 season:

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreport...9/GS020418.HTM - #88 not on ice for any GF or GA => +0
http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreport...9/GS020390.HTM - #88 on ice for 1 5x4 GF => +0
http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreport...9/GS020379.HTM - #88 on ice for 2 5x5 GF, 1 GA => +1
http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreport...9/GS020365.HTM - #88 on ice for 2 5x5 GF, 1 GA => +1


Last edited by Red Deer Rebel: 02-23-2013 at 12:40 PM. Reason: add links
Red Deer Rebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 01:53 PM
  #171
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Deer Rebel View Post
I'm sure he uses a crawler to mine data off the NHL site, and doesn't put these numbers in manually, but you are right - that site is pretty much an amateurish mess.

I've noticed errors before, and this one comes to mind: Look at Rob Schremp's +/- on the nhl.com website for the 2008/09 season => +2.

On behindthenet.ca, it is 0.

I went through the official Game Reports at the time (for the 4 games in question), and behindthenet was wrong.

I mention this because I noticed this discrepancy back when BBO was getting in Schremp debates, and his detractors kept quoting the inaccurate stats from behindthenet. The comments section on Lowetide's blog is a major offender in citing this garbage as well.

Glad you brought this up, because the "stats experts" both here and on the Oilogosphere have never noticed this stuff, even though they are constantly quoting it - which raises concerns about their own competence. This topic is worthy of its own thread, actually.

As the old adage goes: "Garbage in, garbage out" - and this pretty much summarizes behindthenet.

ps. For ease of reference, here are the links to the 4 official Game Reports showing Schremp with a net +2 at even-strength for the 2008-09 season:

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreport...9/GS020418.HTM - #88 not on ice for any GF or GA => +0
http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreport...9/GS020390.HTM - #88 on ice for 1 5x4 GF => +0
http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreport...9/GS020379.HTM - #88 on ice for 2 5x5 GF, 1 GA => +1
http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreport...9/GS020365.HTM - #88 on ice for 2 5x5 GF, 1 GA => +1
We definitely agree on this. I've noted inconsistencies in their data for years. One of the easiest ways to detect it is if the GP for the player don't matchup with what they are on the NHL site. For instance due to missing the LA game the GP for the players is one less. Sometimes they find these errors much later.

Also, Behind the net used to have easy to find disclaimers that go into detail on how they tabulate and where there might be some difference. For instance at one point they didn't count (afairc) GA, GF that were obtained in pulled goalie situations, then they did, then they didn't due to it not being representative of typical 5 on 5 play. Trouble is if you can't make up your mind how to tabulate and what to include and you change it up from time to time then year to year comparisons tend to be null and void.

This not even getting into so many of the "advanced stats" being suspect on their own criteria.

Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 02:33 PM
  #172
BadMedicine*
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
You have said on at least two occasions in response to my posts about time on ice that Qualcomp is not a stat that is valid for small sample sizes.

The first was here



My post was in response to



The sole point was to provide some practical evidence to back up jadeddog's claim. And until Baby Nilsson provided us the link to that great resource this was the best we had.

In the end what is most ironic is that unlike Qualcomp which does have issues with small sample sizes, the stats that I quoted are actually more meaningful early in the season.

As to opponents vs linemates, I actually think both are important. But the statistical evidence debunking your claims that first it was all Whitney's fault and then it was the Justin Schultz factor had already been provided. Indeed, we now have even more evidence to support this. So all I was doing was to show that not only are the defensive issues attributed to Gagner and the second line on their own shoulders, but in fact the "sheltered" first line is actually getting the tough assignments. And I did this not by using some manipulation of +/- but by showing who they actually played against.

And I do recognize that the TOI data I posted was not complete. Though the two sets you objected to cover 9 of the Oilers 14 games. In this case we now have the near complete story which backs up completely the assertions that jadeddog and I made. (see the links below).



This is where much of the problem lies. You also knew for sure that Gagner's line had been stuck with Whitney and Potter so much more than the first line had. This was the reason for Gganer's higher goals against. YOu claimed this was obvious. And then bob pretty much put this fallacy to rest.

So lets see whether what you say above is true.

It turns out that Gagner has played all of 6:22 against Henrik Sedin in the two games the Oilers have played the Canucks. In comparison RNH has had him for 13:33 minutes.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=5v5

Now even if all of the time he played against Henrik was in the first game, which is extremely unlikely, we would still be talking about less than half of the time Gagner was on the ice.

So while your perception is that Gagner matched up against the Sedin's the reality is that he played very little against them.



This is where much of the problem that you and I have stems from. In the last couple of years you have taken to making claims that you can't back up but insist on saying that these claims result from you closely observing the play. More so you claim that those of us who see it differently are driven by an agenda. We all do this to a degree but my issue arises when you are presented clear and unrefutable evidence that your views are wrong. Rather than simply conceding the point as you say you would, you tend to reference "spurious logic", ignore the obvious, or find some other twisted way of skirting the truth.

A recent example of the latter was the strange manipulations of the GAON/60 stats that you did which bob so clearly showed made no sense. Rather than acknowldging that what you wrote was nonesense you still claimed that you had indeed made your point re the mysterious Schultz factor. And guess what, the stats actually show that when playing with Schultz Gagners GA/20 number is 1.02 which is almost identical to his overall number.

The Replacement that I enjoyed sparing with in the past would not have done that but would rather have admitted his error and gone on.
Statistics are the Devils breath. They have ruined this Oilers team and have done untold damages to the NHL in every area from contract negotiations to player development. It has been a historical demise and is still going on full blast.

Statistical analysis is like religon , you need to have FAITH or its all just a bunch of random numbers. You need to believe, just like in Vegas when you dump the morgtage payment on a Knicks game because the odds are so good. You have to be able to fool yourself absolutely. We all just cant do this.

Stats analysis is based on the past on what has already happened, it offers no power of manifestation to write the future. Stats are for losers. Stats are for damage reports and for reassesing where you wnet wrong, not for progress reports and planning for the future.

Statisticly gretzky was one of the worst one on one players against the goalie, so if i was a crooked creep and wanted to manipulate you or "sell" you some snakeoil I could present you with a statistical sales pitch proving beyone any doubt that this hockey Player Gretzky couldnt score on himself looking in the mirror. And I would be a liar and a fraud, a good lawyer could probably prove something different in a court of law but that is exactly where stats crap takes you , into deep water, to the point you need a lawyer to make a system adjustment.

Statistical sales is like selling icecubes to Eskimos, you can actually repackage and resell back to the initial producers nice well typed and technical reproductions of something they have already done once , and actually get paid for it, ha ha ha haha.

Statistical analysis is really purely guessing and cannot be graded on any type of results baseline, it cannot be verified and actualised, it is all guessing, what happens in statsland stays in statsland, its a fairytale type of place you need to let yourself into through your heart because your head keeps the door locked.

Statistics are meaningless unless you are gauging and assesing system suitability based on stats generated by an individual only within that SPECIFIC SYSTEM.
Nothing more can be accomplished with stats you stats addicts, you guys are like heroin addicts always jonesing for the next invisible slice of quasi-reality. This is how salarys in the NHL got out of control and this exact crap is what catalysed the last several work stoppages in the NHL. Those are facts, and an Intuative Analyst will eat up and spit out a statistical analyst every day of the week based on results. You want to destroy hockey keep supporting the stats bandwagon, you want another work stoppage and to watch the trap for twenty more years, then support stats based discussions that go beyond specific individual player/system dynamics.

Stats analysis lets you guess what might happen based on the past Intuative Dynamic Analysis lets you manifest what will happen in the future. Which one would you pay real money for?

BadMedicine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:57 PM.

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.