Curious but what about the blatant elbow that sent Shaw out of game that went uncalled?
there were calls both ways, but in the last period, particularly last 10 mins hawks got away with some pretty flagrant ones. knocking Mcginn's stick out led directly to a goal.
Really, any attempt to quantify play beyond goals, assists and even more flawed numbers like +/- or hits.
We all know there's no magical formula, and the article makes it clear you aren't getting a job in hockey if you don't watch games first and rely on everything else second, but you should use every tool available to evaluate performance.
and that's why some peeps should avoid those stats, too many times I've seen posters pass judgement on player(s) they never seen based on those stats alone.
and that's why some peeps should avoid those stats, too many times I've seen posters pass judgement on player(s) they never seen based on those stats alone.
Shame it seems like the Habs management is extremely old fashioned.
An interesting quote from the article: "We're looking to determine what is random, and what is true performance."
It's rare to hear an NHL insider admit to anything as being random, even though hockey is obviously a chaotic sport. It makes sense that to parse through numbers to isolate true talent, you'd have to figure out what is statistical noise, or the result of dumb luck.
Shame it seems like the Habs management is extremely old fashioned.
It's stupid not to use them. Stats are used in every day life for just about everything, they are quintessential. Why wouldn't an NHL front office use them to evaluate players? Seems pretty asinine and arrogant in a way.
I was watching the game. No he was NOT! Making it look hard doesn't mean it's a hard save. It's a reverse Price. (Excluding 125 mins of questionable hockey). He's lucky Komisarek is out and the Leafs D is FAR better than it used to be, while still letting Binghampton score all those late goals.
An interesting quote from the article: "We're looking to determine what is random, and what is true performance."
It's rare to hear an NHL insider admit to anything as being random, even though hockey is obviously a chaotic sport. It makes sense that to parse through numbers to isolate true talent, you'd have to figure out what is statistical noise, or the result of dumb luck.
If any of you are into stats and the theory behind them, I encourage the books by Nicholas Nassim Taleb: "Fooled by Randomness", "The Black Swan" and now (not AS related, but still a great read) "Antifragile". I come from a science background and as much as we have to respect stats, they can lead us down the wrong path even with a ridiculously high threshold of confidence. Broadly, they help, and it's fine to want to look at the stats as part of the management (what are all those pens for?), but at the end of the day, it's something I've learned not to guide my opinions on what is intrinsically very subjective. Fine, a guy has a lot of giveaways. Put that into perspective - how often is he on the ice, normalize it to his puck possession time (if you can do that). Point being that it's at best a crude predictor and while it helps in general, it's not going to tell you who to put out their on that final shift. A good coach knows what to do and good scouts know what to look for.
Just to clarify - Use stats by all means, but don't make any huge decisions in hockey based solely on them.
Moen is better than Bourque, Armstrong is sub par, but there's a certain thing called roster spots and contract limits in the hockey world.
Doesn't make much sense to switch one scrub for another, especially if you take on an extra contract. Especially that Bourque is 5"8, and we really don't need a small marginal player on the roster at the moment.
Moen is better than Bourque, Armstrong is sub par, but there's a certain thing called roster spots and contract limits in the hockey world.
Doesn't make much sense to switch one scrub for another, especially if you take on an extra contract. Especially that Bourque is 5"8, and we really don't need a small marginal player on the roster at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlords
Yes. Black and white. No gray area in between.
love the attitude, you guys really need to talk down to people like this?
i'm just saying, he's 27, he's on waivers, and I don't see how he could be any worst than Armstrong, I never said we NEEDED him right now nor that we had the space for him.
Sorry for bringing up a discussion about something thats happening out of town in the out of town thread.
love the attitude, you guys really need to talk down to people like this?
i'm just saying, he's 27, he's on waivers, and I don't see how he could be any worst than Armstrong, I never said we NEEDED him right now nor that we had the space for him.
Sorry for bringing up a discussion about something thats happening out of town in the out of town thread.
All the Habs need is ANOTHER small/short player...
A change of scenery might help him. he is not the only player thsi year to have problems getting back in the groove after such a long lockout.
And don't you think he would be re-energized wearing the Bruins jersey and playing on their third line with Kelly and Peverly ?
Like anything, it's a situation where you don't know how he'll respond. Could be a horrible acquisition or the steal of the century. IF boston acquires him, we've got to hope that the former is true. Changes of scenery do generally help though. The bruins can afford to have Clowe play subpar for some time so actually it's a good deal for them. For us...it's a bigger gamble.
