Horcoff is your guys veteran center who allows RNH to be sheltered and score more points. You guys should appreciate him more, he logs tough minutes and does pretty well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps
RNH is a rookie centre and like most rookie centres struggles in the face off dot, obviously he is going to have fewer defensive zone starts than Landeskog. The fact that your other advanced stats tell you that Landeskog is the superior player to RNH is why most people think they are terrible at measuring individual player performance. Hockey is not baseball, there are 5 confounding variables on the ice with the player in question at any given time (teammates).
Again with the baseball *********. They may be behind baseball, but their correlation to predicting future wins and scoring chances make them extremely valuable.
How else are we supposed to valuate individual players then though, if they are so bad? Using your clearly unbiased eye? Macro-stats? Just because a lot of people find them terrible at evaluating talent doesn't mean that they are 'bad'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360
Corsi is not real stats. It's so asinine it's not even funny. Ask any coach, player or analyst what matters more. Points, goals, assists and wins, or Corsi stats. You show me the coach, player, or analyst that would believe Corsi is better I will eat my own hockey skate.
Sure, let's ask Vignealut (sp), Chiarelli, Shero and other successful coaches and GM's who use these stats, along with their own metrics that are based on advanced stats to valuate players.
As an Oilers fan there's no point whining about it. Landeskog is going to win and it's hard to say he hasn't been really great for his team this year. He did contribute a full season of value and is a pretty big beast. Sucks that Nuge couldn't stay healthy but bringing it for 80 games every night as a physical presence who can score is better than missing 20 games as much as I hate to admit it.
people think they are 'bad' stats because they do not understand them, and can't accept that points, while important, do not tell you everything about a player.
A while back a poster was using corsi as one of his stats to "show" that P.A. Parenteau, did not benefit from playing with Tavares in fact he used it to show P.A. was better then Tavares, the stat is far from perfect watching multiple games shows you more about the player then the corsi.
A while back a poster was using corsi as one of his stats to "show" that P.A. Parenteau, did not benefit from playing with Tavares in fact he used it to show P.A. was better then Tavares, the stat is far from perfect watching multiple games shows you more about the player then the corsi.
PA, for Tavares' first years was arguably better. Tavares was pretty sheltered and PA carried him. It's different this year, but that's to be expected, as Tavares has become a better player.
Of course Oil fans pumping up RNH... same difference.
Either way, unbiased Vigneault says Landy is better
"Unbiased" Vigneault has an direct interest in more Canadian hockey fans becoming Canucks fans so he will get a raise. He gains direct financial benefits if Landeskog wins rookie of the year.
I get that you want to see your player win a trophy but get your head out of the clouds.
Comes a long way IMO. This is a coach who sees both RNH and Landy a lot of times
Yeah, because these niceties aren't exchanged every freaking game when that player/that team is literally in the building about to play you that night. Don't worry about AV...he's just saying the right thing to get some cheeseball reporter out of his room. These guys don't unnecessarily add fuel to the fire on game day and there's no excuse for you not to know that.
"Unbiased" Vigneault has an direct interest in more Canadian hockey fans becoming Canucks fans so he will get a raise. He gains direct financial benefits if Landeskog wins rookie of the year.
I get that you want to see your player win a trophy but get your head out of the clouds.
this is one of the strangest posts i have ever read on this site
"Unbiased" Vigneault has an direct interest in more Canadian hockey fans becoming Canucks fans so he will get a raise. He gains direct financial benefits if Landeskog wins rookie of the year.
I get that you want to see your player win a trophy but get your head out of the clouds.
That's far fetched... Van doesn't need extra hockey fans. They have a city which fully supports them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownpipe
Yeah, because these niceties aren't exchanged every freaking game when that player/that team is literally in the building about to play you that night. Don't worry about AV...he's just saying the right thing to get some cheeseball reporter out of his room. These guys don't unnecessarily add fuel to the fire on game day and there's no excuse for you not to know that.
He wasn't asked ''do you think he is the best rookie?'' he was asked ''what do you think of landeskog''. Could easily say he's a great player instead of the saying the best rookie.
Again with the baseball *********. They may be behind baseball, but their correlation to predicting future wins and scoring chances make them extremely valuable.
How else are we supposed to valuate individual players then though, if they are so bad? Using your clearly unbiased eye? Macro-stats? Just because a lot of people find them terrible at evaluating talent doesn't mean that they are 'bad'.
Find a statistical individual measurement that isn't influenced by so many outward variables for starters?
It's a tool yes, but not exactly an all purpose one, if you take my meaning.
Find a statistical individual measurement that isn't influenced by so many outward variables for starters?
It's a tool yes, but not exactly an all purpose one, if you take my meaning.
of course looking at just Corsi in a vacuum isn't perfect, but combined with zone starts and qualcomp, both stats which landeskog has better numbers than RNH, as well as SC +/- (which I have not seen, but as Corsi and Scoring Chances correlate pretty strongly, I'd imagine the difference between the two players is similar), advanced stats paint a much better picture of a player than just looking at their macro stats.
And again, the outward variables issue is in part resolved by looking at relative corsi, as it shows how well you drive possession in comparison to your team in general.
PA, for Tavares' first years was arguably better. Tavares was pretty sheltered and PA carried him. It's different this year, but that's to be expected, as Tavares has become a better player.
Yea except it's been only one year and RNH was considered a higher-risk, higher-reward type prospect...while Landeskog was pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum.
You can argue that he's had a better season, but at this point saying that Landeskog has higher upside than RNH is just ridiculous. It's not impossible, but it's extremely unlikely.
You missed my point, a players ceiling can not be measured, things like work ethic will push some over others, things like injuries will hold others back, theres no way in telling how close rnh or landeskog are to their ceilings, how many people thought stastny would become an 100 point player after his rookie season? In reality he was under very favourable conditions to succeed that season just like rnh is this season (pp time, linemates, sheltered minutes, run and gun system, no pressure playing for a team out of contention a month ago) If landeskog didnt have a high offensive he would not have been a 2nd overall pick had the avs not picked him im confident florida would have. Rnh looks like a future star, but youre acting like landeskog wont get better either imo in a few years this will be like the 2006 draft battle between toews and backstrom
when RNH was on the ice this year the oilers were outchanced heavily. it isn't useless. Landeskog has been better.
Plus, shot volume is a good thing, dont know why that is a slight some people use
he's been better to you through your av's colored glasses. Its a very close race, some people are gonna choose RNH and some will chose landeskog. But one is not definitively better than the other this year.
when RNH was on the ice this year the oilers were outchanced heavily. it isn't useless. Landeskog has been better.
Plus, shot volume is a good thing, dont know why that is a slight some people use
You can't just use a metric designed to evaluate all 5 players on the ice and distill it down to one guy.
Furthermore, as I mentioned before, some players are volume shooters while others focus on higher-quality chances. Both approaches can lead to goals (as evidenced by RNH's superior goals-per-game pace than Landeskog's...). Shot volume is only useful if it actually results in more goals.
PA, for Tavares' first years was arguably better. Tavares was pretty sheltered and PA carried him. It's different this year, but that's to be expected, as Tavares has become a better player.
Uh. PA played his first season for the Islanders last year. This is nonsense.
If RNH hadn't missed twenty games, this would be a landslide for him. Whether you wanna say that's because of point bias or not, who cares. What does matter is that he did miss twenty games, and Landeskog didn't, so Landeskog wins it by a little bit. There ya go.
Horcoff is your guys veteran center who allows RNH to be sheltered and score more points. You guys should appreciate him more, he logs tough minutes and does pretty well.
Oil fans pumping up RNH... same difference. 
