HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Pens and Flames (Staal)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-17-2010, 05:17 PM
  #226
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 14,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lounge Act View Post
Such as?

This reminds me of Flyers fans thinking all it would take to get Pitkanen was Hemsky and our next 3 first rounders. I know fans tend to overrate their players value but this is ridiculous. I've had the pleasure of watching the Flames kick my teams ass all year and Bourque would be a fantastic addition to any team, and since the Pens have a glut of wingers that sets the terms of the deal.

Homers
Something like 1st + young winger + top prospect

As for Pitkanan, last time I checked he was never a huge factor on a Stanley Cup winning team in Philly.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2010, 06:40 PM
  #227
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
This is quoted from behindthenet.ca FAQ Section.



There is definately a flaw in the QOC statistic. Its admitted. There is a way to fix it, but he can't fix it because its to hard and awkward? Maybe its just me, but I have a hard time putting alot of faith into a statistic that is admittedly flawed. +/- is an official NHL statistic, alot of the better posters on hfboards generally agree that +/- is flawed and don't take it very seriously. Yet for whatever reason QOC is treated like a very valuable stat even tho its admittedly flawed. I don't get that logic. There's one flaw for sure. How many other flaws are there? There are alot plays that can't be quantified by statistics in hockey. How are those accounted for?

NFITO does bring up alot of good points. He also neglects some as well. He's using flawed statistic as his main point about who Staal plays against. When teams play Pittsburgh Staal is the least of their worries. The schemes and line matching are made to take Crosby and Malkin into consideration, not Staal.

It really is an extra gear for a player to go from playing 19mins/game in a defensive role against great offensive players to a 21mins/game player playing against teams top defensive pairings and forwards night in and night out. I think that is being underestimated greatly.

Also, just because Staal plays a defensive role doesn't mean he isn't a skilled player. Alot of the leagues best defensive players are very skilled. They generally are good to great skaters, have good hands and are intelligent players. I'm not sure its accurate to say its harder to score goals against top end offensive players. Its definately harder to outscore top end offensive players on a daily basis. Its tough to say that Staal would get less scoring chances against first line players then he would against a team that dedicated its defensive plan to shutting down his line. Top lines play a more open offensively aggressive style of play. That leads to more scoring chances for them, but with it can lead to more scoring chances against. Staal is great at capitalizing on those mistakes and scoring on those mistakes. Is he great at leading a team and/or #1 line against the opposing teams top defensive matchups? Thats purely specualution, no one knows as Staal hasn't even had the chance to be that guy for a full season. Sometimes players don't get to that extra gear that involves being a #1 centre. You wont know with Staal untill he is that #1 guy.

Personally he reminds me of a Holik type centre.
read the thread again... I'm not using QOC as the end all stat to explain my POV... it was in response to bad assumptions made by the other poster that Staal gets easy match-ups and plays against the opposition's weakest defenders, when this isn't true.

And you can ignore the QOC stat altogether and just watch the games... how often do teams that have their top offensive players on the ice put the team's 3rd pairing defenders behind them? The team's best defensive dmen are usually behind the team's top shutdown units - which is what Staal plays, and as such as the strongest defensive dmen behind him when the team's got their match-ups... but the team's worst defenders are usually 10-15min/night guys and aren't flanked behind the opposition's top lines... it's usually the team's 2nd lines that end up playing against the weakest defenders - unless said team is using that 2nd line in a shutdown role of their own.

and however flawed the QOC stat is - and like most stats it will be flawed - it's INFINITELY more accurate than saying that Staal is playing against the bottom pairing dmen in the league just because other teams must be playing their best against Crosby and their next best against Malkin... it doesn't usually work that way just because those teams are setting up their own offensive match-ups, which is what Staal plays against. If, on the other hand, those teams were matching up against Staal, which we all know they don't, then maybe they use their weakest defenders against him, but Staal is a guy who's roles are defined by his team, not a guy who's matched up by his opposition.

and when you add all that up, it's not the "extra gear" as you suggest playing a 2nd line offensive role compared to a 3rd line defensive role. Again when you look at the breakdowns in match-ups - and ignore QOC, watch the games - it's always going to be much easier to generate offense playing a secondary offensive role (while the opposition's best defensive players focus on the team's top offensive line), than when you're playing a shutdown role.... as another poster said, I've seen this same situation play out with Kesler, who's had a much easier time putting up offense in a 2nd line role, instead of when he was on the top defensive unit. Not only is he usually out against the weaker defensive players, but he has better offensive dmen behind him, instead of the team's top shutdown unit, which helps the transition game and helps generate more offense, but he's also playing more PP time, and getting better, more offensive, wingers next to him as well.

Add it all up, and like Kesler, I am certain that you put Staal in that role and his offense would shoot up.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2010, 10:21 PM
  #228
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
There is definately a flaw in the QOC statistic. Its admitted. There is a way to fix it, but he can't fix it because its to hard and awkward? Maybe its just me, but I have a hard time putting alot of faith into a statistic that is admittedly flawed. +/- is an official NHL statistic, alot of the better posters on hfboards generally agree that +/- is flawed and don't take it very seriously. Yet for whatever reason QOC is treated like a very valuable stat even tho its admittedly flawed. I don't get that logic. There's one flaw for sure. How many other flaws are there? There are alot plays that can't be quantified by statistics in hockey. How are those accounted for?
Almost every stat is flawed in some way. "Goals" is a flawed measure of shooting ability because there is luck involved in scoring goals (e.g. shooting % bounces around from year to year), yet no one suggests we stop tallying goals for individual players. A flawed statistic doesn't mean it's useless. There's another stat on that site that does a better job than QOC, that's Corsi Relative QOC. According to that measure, Volchenkov is still 1st. Keith and Seabrook, Marc Staal, Jackman, Mitchell, Gleason... are all in the top 20. The enforcers, John Scott, Kris Russell.. are at the bottom. For the Pens, the statistic has (in order) Orpik, J.Staal, Gonchar, Crosby, and Cooke in the top 5, with Godard, Adams and Rupp at the bottom. Sounds like a pretty good measure.

barneyg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 04:24 AM
  #229
Lunatik*
 
Lunatik*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASV 27 View Post
This is AMAZING! Cherish these years cause they go by quickly and arguments like this don't fly once you get to high school.
just bored with the arguement... it should have been over when I said it was a matter of opinion but he just kept going... believe it or not I am allowed opinions... and I love how you call someone childish when you arguable say the most childish thing in the entire thread... great job!

Lunatik* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 04:35 AM
  #230
Lunatik*
 
Lunatik*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
This is quoted from behindthenet.ca FAQ Section.



There is definately a flaw in the QOC statistic. Its admitted. There is a way to fix it, but he can't fix it because its to hard and awkward? Maybe its just me, but I have a hard time putting alot of faith into a statistic that is admittedly flawed. +/- is an official NHL statistic, alot of the better posters on hfboards generally agree that +/- is flawed and don't take it very seriously. Yet for whatever reason QOC is treated like a very valuable stat even tho its admittedly flawed. I don't get that logic. There's one flaw for sure. How many other flaws are there? There are alot plays that can't be quantified by statistics in hockey. How are those accounted for?

NFITO does bring up alot of good points. He also neglects some as well. He's using flawed statistic as his main point about who Staal plays against. When teams play Pittsburgh Staal is the least of their worries. The schemes and line matching are made to take Crosby and Malkin into consideration, not Staal.

It really is an extra gear for a player to go from playing 19mins/game in a defensive role against great offensive players to a 21mins/game player playing against teams top defensive pairings and forwards night in and night out. I think that is being underestimated greatly.

Also, just because Staal plays a defensive role doesn't mean he isn't a skilled player. Alot of the leagues best defensive players are very skilled. They generally are good to great skaters, have good hands and are intelligent players. I'm not sure its accurate to say its harder to score goals against top end offensive players. Its definately harder to outscore top end offensive players on a daily basis. Its tough to say that Staal would get less scoring chances against first line players then he would against a team that dedicated its defensive plan to shutting down his line. Top lines play a more open offensively aggressive style of play. That leads to more scoring chances for them, but with it can lead to more scoring chances against. Staal is great at capitalizing on those mistakes and scoring on those mistakes. Is he great at leading a team and/or #1 line against the opposing teams top defensive matchups? Thats purely specualution, no one knows as Staal hasn't even had the chance to be that guy for a full season. Sometimes players don't get to that extra gear that involves being a #1 centre. You wont know with Staal untill he is that #1 guy.

Personally he reminds me of a Holik type centre.
it's beyond flawed... you also have to consider who is hot and who is not, both offensively and defensively, that doesn't show in anything, doesn't take a players improvements throughout a season into account... its done in a way that assumes a player plays the same way yesterday as he did on day 1 of the season... that is a HUGE flaw... there is no accurate way to quantify quality of competition

Lunatik* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:52 AM
  #231
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatik View Post
it's beyond flawed... you also have to consider who is hot and who is not, both offensively and defensively, that doesn't show in anything, doesn't take a players improvements throughout a season into account... its done in a way that assumes a player plays the same way yesterday as he did on day 1 of the season... that is a HUGE flaw... there is no accurate way to quantify quality of competition
That's just how all statistics work. Look at the league's leading scorers. A goal in October is worth as much as a goal on Feb. 7. Tavares has 6 points since Dec. 31, same as Jack Hillen, yet he's still 3rd leading scorer on the Isles. Should that change too?

Seriously, you quoted the post you agreed with but didn't bother replying to (or even reading?) my own response to that post. No statistic can ever be perfect. Goals and assists are, in part, the result of luck. More advanced statistics like Corsi, adjusted +/- or Quality of competition measures, also suffer from measurement error and are flawed, but it doesn't mean they are useless. It's like disregarding tomorrow's weather forecast of -35 because last month the weather guy was off about 5 degrees each day. It may end up being -29 but it's still going to be bloody cold.

I like to look at what those stats can tell you, and what they can't. I know people try to improve on that and it seems that this site is the best there is to measure quality of competition. It's not perfect. But again, guys like Volchenkov, Keith, Barrett Jackman, Tim Gleason.. show up at the top of the list, while 4th line waste and enforcers are at the bottom. Wouldn't that tell you something about the relevance of this statistic, even beyond its flaws?

barneyg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 03:25 PM
  #232
Pacem
Registered User
 
Pacem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Langley
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
I like to look at what those stats can tell you, and what they can't. I know people try to improve on that and it seems that this site is the best there is to measure quality of competition. It's not perfect. But again, guys like Volchenkov, Keith, Barrett Jackman, Tim Gleason.. show up at the top of the list, while 4th line waste and enforcers are at the bottom. Wouldn't that tell you something about the relevance of this statistic, even beyond its flaws?
Its flaws seem that bad tho. Look thru the list more thoroughly there is some wackyness in there. Some teams seem out of whack. Ottawa has 4 of the top 7 and 5 of the top 14. Vancouver only has 4 players that are above zero. Mitchell is ranked the highest on Vancouver at #50. (I used a filter of 30 games, half the games that have been played) The Sedins are in the bottom 3rd of the league in QOC. I'd be utterly stupid to suggest QOC is the reason why Henrik has gone from a PPG player to second in the league in scoring.

Stats are flawed, I get that. QOC seems extremely flawed. A stat that is used to compare competition does not accurate take into account when good players play against good players. Seriously, WTF???? What the hell is the point of the stat then? It just makes no sense to me. I don't see how people can take it as seriously as they do when it is so bad. When people bring up QOC as a stat for justifying how great a player is, it reminds me of how people bring up +/- as a good reason for why a player is so great. It just makes for a horrible argument. +/- has its uses in the right context, but +/- is not a good stat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
read the thread again... I'm not using QOC as the end all stat to explain my POV... it was in response to bad assumptions made by the other poster that Staal gets easy match-ups and plays against the opposition's weakest defenders, when this isn't true.

And you can ignore the QOC stat altogether and just watch the games... how often do teams that have their top offensive players on the ice put the team's 3rd pairing defenders behind them? The team's best defensive dmen are usually behind the team's top shutdown units - which is what Staal plays, and as such as the strongest defensive dmen behind him when the team's got their match-ups... but the team's worst defenders are usually 10-15min/night guys and aren't flanked behind the opposition's top lines... it's usually the team's 2nd lines that end up playing against the weakest defenders - unless said team is using that 2nd line in a shutdown role of their own.

and however flawed the QOC stat is - and like most stats it will be flawed - it's INFINITELY more accurate than saying that Staal is playing against the bottom pairing dmen in the league just because other teams must be playing their best against Crosby and their next best against Malkin... it doesn't usually work that way just because those teams are setting up their own offensive match-ups, which is what Staal plays against. If, on the other hand, those teams were matching up against Staal, which we all know they don't, then maybe they use their weakest defenders against him, but Staal is a guy who's roles are defined by his team, not a guy who's matched up by his opposition.

and when you add all that up, it's not the "extra gear" as you suggest playing a 2nd line offensive role compared to a 3rd line defensive role. Again when you look at the breakdowns in match-ups - and ignore QOC, watch the games - it's always going to be much easier to generate offense playing a secondary offensive role (while the opposition's best defensive players focus on the team's top offensive line), than when you're playing a shutdown role.... as another poster said, I've seen this same situation play out with Kesler, who's had a much easier time putting up offense in a 2nd line role, instead of when he was on the top defensive unit. Not only is he usually out against the weaker defensive players, but he has better offensive dmen behind him, instead of the team's top shutdown unit, which helps the transition game and helps generate more offense, but he's also playing more PP time, and getting better, more offensive, wingers next to him as well.

Add it all up, and like Kesler, I am certain that you put Staal in that role and his offense would shoot up.
Holy crap man. Did you read my post? Tell me where I said anything about him not being able to do well as a second line Centre? All i've done is agreed with a posters assessment that sees Staal top out as a second line centre. People seem to think he'd be a great #1 centre on most teams in the league. I don't think he will be a top end #1 centre. You disagree, thats fine. He may put up more points as a second line centre, I won't disagree. I think he'd jump up to the 60-65 point total maybe a bit more or less, similiar to offensive numbers of second line centres on good hockey teams. Notice I said good hockey teams, bad/mediocre teams have "#1 centers" getting 60 points. I know how it is, Calgary has been trying to make #2 centres seem like #1 guys for quite a few years now.

I think he'll take a path simliar to what happened with Holik. Once he gets to UFA status a team will sign him to a big fat contract, he'll be paid as a #1 centre and be a dispointment for how much he'd be getting paid. Only my opinion. I don't think he'll get to the 80-90 point range as a #1 centre.

The "extra gear" i'm refering to is from #3 centre to #1 centre. I'm really not sure how you missed that. The post you quoted I referenced Staal as a #1 centre 3 times and was exclusively talking about him being a #1 guy. In the post you quoted, not once did I even mention #2 centre. A good chunk of my post was about that extra gear of going from a #3 center to a #1 center. In a previous post I called him a top notch #2 centre. Jumping from #3 center to #2 centre wouldn't be that big of a step for Staal. He's already used to the icetime a #2 centre gets. We'll know in about 7/8 years how Staal developed.

I live in Vancouver I watch alot of Vancouver games, because I love watching hockey. I'm well aware of the evolution of Kesler, its not lost on me. Staal and Kesler are similiar players and I don't think Kesler is an ideal #1 centre either.

Pacem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 03:59 PM
  #233
Lunatik*
 
Lunatik*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
That's just how all statistics work. Look at the league's leading scorers. A goal in October is worth as much as a goal on Feb. 7. Tavares has 6 points since Dec. 31, same as Jack Hillen, yet he's still 3rd leading scorer on the Isles. Should that change too?

Seriously, you quoted the post you agreed with but didn't bother replying to (or even reading?) my own response to that post. No statistic can ever be perfect. Goals and assists are, in part, the result of luck. More advanced statistics like Corsi, adjusted +/- or Quality of competition measures, also suffer from measurement error and are flawed, but it doesn't mean they are useless. It's like disregarding tomorrow's weather forecast of -35 because last month the weather guy was off about 5 degrees each day. It may end up being -29 but it's still going to be bloody cold.

I like to look at what those stats can tell you, and what they can't. I know people try to improve on that and it seems that this site is the best there is to measure quality of competition. It's not perfect. But again, guys like Volchenkov, Keith, Barrett Jackman, Tim Gleason.. show up at the top of the list, while 4th line waste and enforcers are at the bottom. Wouldn't that tell you something about the relevance of this statistic, even beyond its flaws?
except a goal in October is still a goal... but the quality of your opposition can change dramatically through a season... that might be worded badly so I will give you an example...

take Steve Stamkos last season... by seasons end his 'quality' was infinitely higher at the end of the season than it was in October... and who decides a players quality anyways?... how do you quantify the quality difference between 2 players? is it solely based on opposition?... is it based on stats?... take Regehr and Phaneuf for example... who counts as the higher quality opponent?... is it Phaneuf for his offensive ability? or Regehr for his defensive ability?... well Regehr is harder to play against offensively... but Phaneuf is harder to defend against... no matter what anything to do with quality of competition is based solely on a persons (or group of peoples) opinion(s) of who is more of a quality player.. because statistics don't tell you enough to determine those small differences

Lunatik* 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 09:36 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.