Quickest way to burst Omarks stats bubble is to point out his GFON.
Normally a good player makes other players better and not only contributes pts but helps other linemates production. With Linus what you get is that his pts happens to be almost equal to his GFON. Meaning that no other production goes on during his minutes and that the team overall isn't producing much of anything with him on the ice.
Which is a much different look than the superficial view that he creates a lot of offense. He really doesn't so far at this level. Maybe he'll find it, but on a teamsport you have to use everybody better than he does. I think his personal success prevented from learning how to be a hockey player in a teamsport.
Omarks GFON needs to be better for a topsix player on an offensive club.
The GFON/60 is not a particularly reliable stat taken out of context. Players that play fewer minutes can have their results particularly distorted. This is especially true if they play in the bottom 6 for much of the time like Omark did last year.
For example, Omark's and Sequin's GFON/60 last year were pretty much the same. Does that tell us anything about either player's prospects going forward.
I'd aslo be somewhat concerned about the characterization of Omark being on an offensive club. The minutes he played last year were for a team that was 28th overall in gf and was even further skewed by the fact that he played a lot of his games after the teams best offensive players were out for the year.
This suggests anything but a player that is being effective and smart with the puck and that is contributing to the key of the game. If anything last season Omark was a key to drafting RNH.
Mah, tanking is a team sport. I wouldn't give Omark the credit for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement
The interesting thing is why Sam is getting these assignments. I have to think its because he's one of the more reasonable players on the club who won't complain.
In terms of playing style I would expect Omark to be paired with players like Horc, Smyth, who could, one would think, possibly benefit(hypothetically, I'm not concluding they would benefit) from Omarks setup passing game. I just find it interesting that the Oilers have pretty much avoided those matchups and went with Omark-Gagner so much.
Thank you! I don't get why they don't give a 10 game stint with Smyth-Horc-Omark. Good checking and D by the veterans and (hopefully) a somewhat unpredictable offense run by Omark. That's what I want to see.
With regards to who plays with Omark and how they behave I think it's a non-issue. Or at least it definitely should be. I can not imagine any of our players, expecially those who have been here some time would be reluctant to play with the assigned line mates. They are professional and hghly paid players and need to fall in line with what the manager decides. If that's is in fact not the case I'd be so ******* disappointed.
The GFON/60 is not a particularly reliable stat taken out of context. Players that play fewer minutes can have their results particularly distorted. This is especially true if they play in the bottom 6 for much of the time like Omark did last year.
For example, Omark's and Sequin's GFON/60 last year were pretty much the same. Does that tell us anything about either player's prospects going forward.
I'd aslo be somewhat concerned about the characterization of Omark being on an offensive club. The minutes he played last year were for a team that was 28th overall in gf and was even further skewed by the fact that he played a lot of his games after the teams best offensive players were out for the year.
Well Omark spent much of the time with Gagner and Paajarvi, and it was one of Gagners worst stints in his career from either a GFON, pts production, or GA perspective. Your contention that Omark spent much of his time in bottomsix last year is misleading. Most of his time was with Gagner and Paajarvi. When it wasn't that configuration it was Cogliano and Paajarvi. Despite this Omark was running clear 4th line type GFON despite having better linemates than you suggest. Plus with Omarks style of play and his observed want to be the QB on every puck possession I think the GFON is very revealing in countering the common distortion that he creates lots of offense. If he did it would be reflected in GF when he's on the ice.
But again what I noted was little differentiation from Omarks EV pts/60mins to his EV GFON/60mins and with very little difference in these numbers suggesting that not all players are properly and equally utilized while Omark is on the ice.
Gagner for instance was able to grow the contributions of players like Nillson and Cogliano. Its interesting that theres virtually no chemistry, and poor results for all, with the Gagner-Omark pairing which could only be deemed useful to tanking.
I said before the game against Montreal if Omark was pushing around 20mins you'd know for sure the gig is up again and tanking for bottom is again the plan and with a loss to Montreal needed. Interesting that it happened.
Last edited by Replacement: 03-10-2012 at 12:50 PM.
Well Omark spent much of the time with Gagner and Paajarvi, and it was one of Gagners worst stints in his career from either a GFON, pts production, or GA perspective. Your contention that Omark spent much of his time in bottomsix last year is misleading. Most of his time was with Gagner and Paajarvi. When it wasn't that configuration it was Cogliano and Paajarvi. Despite this Omark was running clear 4th line type GFON despite having better linemates than you suggest. Plus with Omarks style of play and his observed want to be the QB on every puck possession I think the GFON is very revealing in countering the common distortion that he creates lots of offense. If he did it would be reflected in GF when he's on the ice.
But again what I noted was little differentiation from Omarks EV pts/60mins to his EV GFON/60mins and with very little difference in these numbers suggesting that not all players are properly and equally utilized while Omark is on the ice.
Gagner for instance was able to grow the contributions of players like Nillson and Cogliano. Its interesting that theres virtually no chemistry, and poor results for all, with the Gagner-Omark pairing which could only be deemed useful to tanking.
I said before the game against Montreal if Omark was pushing around 20mins you'd know for sure the gig is up again and tanking for bottom is again the plan and with a loss to Montreal needed. Interesting that it happened.
The stastitic is simply flawed when it is applied over a relatively small sample size. As I said it suggest that he and Seguin were about equal. What does that tell us about the type of player Omark is?
The stastitic is simply flawed when it is applied over a relatively small sample size. As I said it suggest that he and Seguin were about equal. What does that tell us about the type of player Omark is?
Nothing at all and you know that. Its no argument to engage in a comparison with an incomparable.
Just because you could hand pick a segment where a good to great player had a bad spell and compare it with Omark doesn't mean you should. This is pure fallacy.
Plus the obvious thing being Seguin was all of 18yrs old and just getting his feet wet in pro hockey for the first time. But he acclimitized himself well and didn't take that long to hit the ground running.
Omark is 25 and still at a pedestrian pace.
I'll say this once more. My use of GFON is simply to counter the erroneous notion that Omark produces, or contributes to considerable offense. The one fact the GFON represents is to this point, is that for whatever reason, is Omark hasn't produced or contributed much. What we know is that not many GF have happened with him on the ice, and many more GA have happened with him on the ice. I'm not using this information though in isolation, or concluding anything on the player simply with this barometer. If you think I've concluded anything its not the case. I'm still waiting for more sample.
Last edited by Replacement: 03-11-2012 at 09:27 AM.
Well Omark spent much of the time with Gagner and Paajarvi, and it was one of Gagners worst stints in his career from either a GFON, pts production, or GA perspective. Your contention that Omark spent much of his time in bottomsix last year is misleading. Most of his time was with Gagner and Paajarvi. When it wasn't that configuration it was Cogliano and Paajarvi. Despite this Omark was running clear 4th line type GFON despite having better linemates than you suggest. Plus with Omarks style of play and his observed want to be the QB on every puck possession I think the GFON is very revealing in countering the common distortion that he creates lots of offense. If he did it would be reflected in GF when he's on the ice.
But again what I noted was little differentiation from Omarks EV pts/60mins to his EV GFON/60mins and with very little difference in these numbers suggesting that not all players are properly and equally utilized while Omark is on the ice.
Gagner for instance was able to grow the contributions of players like Nillson and Cogliano. Its interesting that theres virtually no chemistry, and poor results for all, with the Gagner-Omark pairing which could only be deemed useful to tanking.
I said before the game against Montreal if Omark was pushing around 20mins you'd know for sure the gig is up again and tanking for bottom is again the plan and with a loss to Montreal needed. Interesting that it happened.
Despite beign a lazy ass player (as confirmed by himself and Horc last year duting interviews) Nilsson had a **** load of talent and didn't need anyone to raise his game one bit. If anything, when motivated, he raised the game of everyone around him.
There, SWE-bias, happy now
(or maybe it's because Nilsson Sr is my all time favorite player and I do let the son get a way with more than he should just because of that.....)
Despite beign a lazy ass player (as confirmed by himself and Horc last year duting interviews) Nilsson had a **** load of talent and didn't need anyone to raise his game one bit. If anything, when motivated, he raised the game of everyone around him.
There, SWE-bias, happy now
(or maybe it's because Nilsson Sr is my all time favorite player and I do let the son get a way with more than he should just because of that.....)
heh
Switch "grow" with "motivate" and we have pretty much the same equation. Gagner motivated Nilsson to an extent never seen before or after. Sure the talent was there, Nillson was wearing some good hockey genes...
By his own accounts Nilsson stated that the 18yr old Gagner made him elevate his game after watching the kid with all kinds of try going shift after shift like the energizer bunny.
The only current player from that line that was able to continue with a reasonable level of offensive production was Gagner.
