Considering the purpose of including a player like Ennis in a trade would be to gain a center that would help guys like Stafford at even strength, I'm not sure what the purpose of this is.

Well considering Ennis has produced consistantly solid numbers at ES the last two years in the playoffs (tied for team lead both years). All done without the center that is supposedly required to produce points with. We've only scratched the surface with this kid. He has only 1 full NHL season under his belt (hasn't even played 100 regular season games yet) and will be just 22 when next season starts. Yet he already has 13 playoff games under his belt and was dangerous in many of them producing 3g 5a 8pts in those 13gms. He still has things to learn and can be maddening (like early in the Philly series). But a kid his age already producing like he has in the playoffs so far. Thats not a player I would be looking to get rid of any time soon. I would argue getting rid of him wouldn't be the brightest move.

Btw you can't have it both ways with Stafford. Either Stafford was creating a ton of great scoring chances but was snakebitten or he needs a center to help him score.

EDIT: we don't need a top level center added to have more success in the playoffs. We need a fairly healthy roster. Its pretty tough to win when you enter the playoffs without 2 of your best 3 center options (Roy + Hecht) out injured as well as 2 of your top 4 dmen (Leopold + Sekera). Then lose one of your best forwards (Pommer) in game 5 and your other top 3 center option (Connolly) in game 6.

I'll rephrase: any conclusions. And if you want to argue that you made no conclusions, and that you were merely posting data, I'd say it's a pointless set of numbers given that it's evidence of very little due to the sample size problem.

I'll rephrase: any conclusions. And if you want to argue that you made no conclusions, and that you were merely posting data, I'd say it's a pointless set of numbers given that it's evidence of very little due to the sample size problem.

So what exactly qualifies as the right amount of playoff games needed to make conclusions?

So what exactly qualifies as the right amount of playoff games needed to make conclusions?

Ask a statistics major. But I know 13 hockey games--over two seasons no less-- is not a sample size sufficient to make any reasonable conclusions. And there were plenty of people making conclusions based on your numbers (see below). I'd imagine that we'd need at least 30+ games to glean much of anything--again, a stats major would have to tell us what a statistically significant sample size would be in hockey, but I know it isn't 9-13 games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar

Sorta makes you wonder why Gaustad and Stafford were both top four for playoff ESTOI in the Flyers' series...

Good analysis though; I'm a little surprised at Pominville's productivity, especially in the Boston series, where he never really stood out to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindy4Prez

That's the one thing that that bothers me about Staff. His performance these past two playoffs has left little to be desired

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlr

Definitely nteresting numbers. While I'm sure adding in powerplay points would increase the numbers a bit, those PPG numbers sure look pretty weak to me. Says a lot about the top six when bottom-six players like McCormick, Kaleta, and Gaustad are 3 of the top 7, and two rookies in Ennis and Gerbe are 2 of the top 3.

Not to mention our "two top 20 centers" - Connolly doesn't even make the top 8, and Roy isn't much better - his 2 assists put him at either 6th or 7th, depending on if you count his game this year or not.

He only had 11 assists / 20 points, but that still puts him at #1 with .67 ES ppg. Hopefully we get the chance to see what he can do in the playoffs this year.

Ask a statistics major. But I know 13 hockey games--over two seasons no less-- is not a sample size sufficient to make any reasonable conclusions. And there were plenty of people making conclusions based on your numbers (see below). I'd imagine that we'd need at least 30+ games to glean much of anything--again, a stats major would have to tell us what a statistically significant sample size would be in hockey, but I know it isn't 9-13 games.

Why? I'm not trying to prove anything that matters in life (or anything in hockey for that matter). I'm discussing hockey and playoff production in the last two years. Which sad to say didn't get beyond 13 gms total for the Sabres.

I listed the stats from the last two years and commented on a few of them. Quite frankly I fail to see the issue. But if this discussion is beneath your statistical standards you can just ignore it.

Ask a statistics major. But I know 13 hockey games--over two seasons no less-- is not a sample size sufficient to make any reasonable conclusions.

Then how exactly do you expect to evaluate NHL players? Should we count regular season games too? Or wait until they get a sufficiently large sample size? Would 50 playoff games be enough? 100?

This isn't scientific research, and we're not trying to prove anything. We'll never - ever - have a sufficiently large enough sample to do that. NHL careers are far too short, and the whole point is to make the evaluation before all the data is in.

13 playoff games is more than enough to start to see some emerging trends and draw tentative conclusions.

Then how exactly do you expect to evaluate NHL players? Should we count regular season games too? Or wait until they get a sufficiently large sample size? Would 50 playoff games be enough? 100?

This isn't scientific research, and we're not trying to prove anything. We'll never - ever - have a sufficiently large enough sample to do that. NHL careers are far too short, and the whole point is to make the evaluation before all the data is in.

13 playoff games is more than enough to start to see some emerging trends and draw tentative conclusions.

Not really. Thirteen games is essentially a month of hockey. I could handpick any month of hockey, spew out some data, and it wouldn't mean a damned thing other than to state that's what happened in my given sample size. It's just too small of a sample size to glean anything of significance.

Last edited by joshjull: 07-10-2011 at 10:47 PM.
Reason: Enough with the snarkiness

Why? I'm not trying to prove anything that matters in life (or anything in hockey for that matter). I'm discussing hockey and playoff production in the last two years. Which sad to say didn't get beyond 13 gms total for the Sabres.

I listed the stats from the last two years and commented on a few of them. Quite frankly I fail to see the issue. But if this discussion is beneath your statistical standards you can just ignore it.

Then how exactly do you expect to evaluate NHL players? Should we count regular season games too? Or wait until they get a sufficiently large sample size? Would 50 playoff games be enough? 100?

This isn't scientific research, and we're not trying to prove anything. We'll never - ever - have a sufficiently large enough sample to do that. NHL careers are far too short, and the whole point is to make the evaluation before all the data is in.

13 playoff games is more than enough to start to see some emerging trends and draw tentative conclusions.

to make accurate statements to a standard degree of accuracy (say .05) you need a sample size of 200.

so with a sample size of 13, you pretty much have a 27% chance of coming to the wrong conclusion.

anyway, to the snark about statistics and pedantry, I look the other way, because some people don't understand that there's more than 1 way to appreciate a game. Some people like to understand how players/teams operate in a way interesting way other than the subjective debate (he's a better skater/he's a better skater) where everyone's right and everyone's wrong and we're just passing time until dinner.

Not really. Thirteen games is essentially a month of hockey. I could handpick any month of hockey, spew out some data, and it wouldn't mean a damned thing other than to state that's what happened in my given sample size. It's just too small of a sample size to glean anything of significance.

Exactly.

So when posters (me + Lindy4Prez) for example say we are disappointed in Stafford's playoff production. Its a comment on what happened in those games. Now if we took that production and tried to argue it proves Stafford has shown he can't be counted on in the playoffs. Then your arguement that the sample is too small to prove that would make sense. But we didn't.

to make accurate statements to a standard degree of accuracy (say .05) you need a sample size of 200.

so with a sample size of 13, you pretty much have a 27% chance of coming to the wrong conclusion.

anyway, to the snark about statistics and pedantry, I look the other way, because some people don't understand that there's more than 1 way to appreciate a game. Some people like to understand how players/teams operate in a way interesting way other than the subjective debate (he's a better skater/he's a better skater) where everyone's right and everyone's wrong and we're just passing time until dinner.

okay, carry on with your battling back and forth.

Based on that Briere needs to give us another 103 playoff games before we can draw an accurate conclusion about his playoff prowess.

Based on that Briere needs to give us another 103 playoff games before we can draw an accurate conclusion about his playoff prowess.

Well thats pretty much it. Here in hockey land almost no one and nothing meets the standards for statistically reliable accuracy. Therefore we are forever constrained to the realm of probability.

So when posters (me + Lindy4Prez) for example say we are disappointed in Stafford's playoff production. Its a comment on what happened in those games. Now if we took that production and tried to argue it proves Stafford has shown he can't be counted on in the playoffs. Then your arguement that the sample is too small to prove that would make sense. But we didn't.

Lindy4Prez said that Stafford's performance (not production) has left him wanting. Did he watch this season's playoffs? Stafford was arguably our best forward. And I only say arguably because he wasn't that great in Games 1 and 2. He was by far our best forward for the remainder of the series--maybe Nieds was close, but that was about it.

And, as I quoted, plenty of people were over-reaching with their conclusions based on this small sample size.

Games are games are games, regardless of when they are. Tim Connolly was a playoff hero once, and now he's not, even though his regular season PPG was for the most part consistent over the same timespan. Joe Thornton finally breaks through and suddenly he no longer is a "choker." IMO Playoff Performers, outside of the ATG players and certain exceptions a la Claude Lemieux, are just players who hit hot streaks or play for the better teams. Briere, for example has the luxury of being the 1/2C on the best offensive teams since the lockout. Fernando Pisani hit a vein of hockey gold and tapped it out in one postseason.

I never thought distilling such a chaotic system like sports to mere statistics was particularly intelligent to begin with, so I feel I align with Joshjull on this one.

13 games is more than enough to see how a player handles themselves in a high pressure situation. Whether they learn from it and get better for it won't be seen until camp and the proceeding year.

As far as Stafford goes, 1 A in 10 games is just awful... Especially considering his actual play vs the Flyers was very good indeed.

Problem is, especially after his new contract and his breakout season, solid play is no longer going to be enough... They need him and Vanek to score, no matter how they develop and play in their own end.

Lindy4Prez said that Stafford's performance (not production) has left him wanting. Did he watch this season's playoffs? Stafford was arguably our best forward. And I only say arguably because he wasn't that great in Games 1 and 2. He was by far our best forward for the remainder of the series--maybe Nieds was close, but that was about it.

And, as I quoted, plenty of people were over-reaching with their conclusions based on this small sample size.

Yes, L4P did watch the playoffs

We have a fundamental difference of opinion when it ones to Stafford's play in the playoffs. Yes he had chances and in that sense had a good series, but as others have pointed out, what good is he if he isn't showing up on the score sheet? Maybe Im a little biased against Drew for his performance down the stretch last season in 09-10, but by using that logic, you could argue that Boyes had a good playoffs too (lots of chances, worked hard, just didn't show on the scoresheet, etc).

Stafford was PKing against Philly, but he still has a long way to go on his defensive game. Had it been someone like Hecht who was snakebitten but was also a factor in shutting down one of Philly's star forwards, then you make the argument that the player was still effective in ways other than the box score. This is just an example, but you get my point that Stafford (atleast at this point in his career) needs to produce to be effective.

Games are games are games, regardless of when they are. Tim Connolly was a playoff hero once, and now he's not, even though his regular season PPG was for the most part consistent over the same timespan. Joe Thornton finally breaks through and suddenly he no longer is a "choker." IMO Playoff Performers, outside of the ATG players and certain exceptions a la Claude Lemieux, are just players who hit hot streaks or play for the better teams. Briere, for example has the luxury of being the 1/2C on the best offensive teams since the lockout. Fernando Pisani hit a vein of hockey gold and tapped it out in one postseason.

This is a very good point. Players who were once playoff legends (Connolly, 05-06) can easily become playoff scapegoats (Connolly 09-10)

I never thought distilling such a chaotic system like sports to mere statistics was particularly intelligent to begin with, so I feel I align with Joshjull on this one.

13 games is more than enough to see how a player handles themselves in a high pressure situation. Whether they learn from it and get better for it won't be seen until camp and the proceeding year.

Is this statement completely contradictory to itself, or am I reading it wrong?

Distilling sports to mere statistics is exactly what Joshjull does...