HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Prospect Camp - Scrimmage

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2011, 03:04 PM
  #376
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 11,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
That's exactly my point. The numbers are really overrated when it comes to defensive play.
But cmon man, we all know numbers dont lie.

Jtown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:06 PM
  #377
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
Yikes, Staal and Perry have good reps for there defensive play too.
Shouldn't, have never been that great. At the same time. He is right that other factors come into play. Staal and Perry are both surrounded by teammates getting scored on at similar clips.

Malkin isn't, he's an outlier of bad on his own team.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:14 PM
  #378
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Which is why I asked above of whomever whether you think Toews or Kane is more talented... cuz it isn't close.



Here's a resource for you: www.behindthenet.ca

Malkin 3.20 per 60 ES (established)
Marleau 2.85
Staal 3.22 (also terrible defensively, btw... was 3.17 the year before)
Perry 3.01
St Louis 3.09
Stamkos 2.61
Zetterberg 2.89
Iginla 2.86

So, outside of Staal, Malkin was worse than all of these guys. At the same time, this ignores how much worse Malkin was than everyone else on his own TEAM, which is a far stronger indication of how crap you are than anything else. Staal was bad, but the gap between him and the next guy was not 0.6 G/60 minutes.
And again, these numbers mean nothing to me. Just like the numbers I posted.

They're worthless.

The only thing you can gather is that the players who get the most minutes, get scored on the most.

And also what's the difference between 2.86 GAON? and 3.22 GAON/60? Assuming each player plays 20 minutes per game, Iginla (2.86) would give up .95 goals per game. Staal (3.22) would give up 1.07.

Not much of a difference there. You can say it adds up over the course of the season......but then wouldnt you just be returning to the stats that I posted? Wouldnt that just become total GA over the season?

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:23 PM
  #379
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
And again, these numbers mean nothing to me. Just like the numbers I posted.

They're worthless.

The only thing you can gather is that the players who get the most minutes, get scored on the most.

And also what's the difference between 2.86 GAON? and 3.22 GAON/60? Assuming each player plays 20 minutes per game, Iginla (2.86) would give up .95 goals per game. Staal (3.22) would give up 1.07.

Not much of a difference there. You can say it adds up over the course of the season......but then wouldnt you just be returning to the stats that I posted? Wouldnt that just become total GA over the season?
It's empirical data, dude. It's what ACTUALLY happened.

What's the difference between 2.86 and 3.22?

Lets assume 14 minutes a night, for 82 games. That's 1148 minutes. Divide by 60, and you get 19.13.

2.86 GAON/60 translates to 54.7 goals against.
3.22 GAON/60 translates to 61.6 goals against.

On the Penguins alone the difference between Malkin and Crosby (0.6) represented 11.5 goals against over the course of a season last year (a far more damning statistic).

And no, your gross GA number is not the same thing because that doesn't account for how often a player was on the ice for his team. Jody Shelley is terrible, but he isn't going to have a ton of goals scored against him, right? That's why rate statistics are far more useful.

Serious question, what number tells you how good a batter is in baseball as a "hitter" (i.e. getting hits). A guy with a high gross number of hits, or a guy with a high BA?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:31 PM
  #380
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cromster View Post
Defensive numbers is an oxymoron? ok.

The same things can be said about watching offensive play, instead of looking at the numbers. I think that's the point Jester was trying to make with the secondary assists. You basically just made his point for him.

Malkin may not be the worst defensive player in the game, but he is probably one of the worst defensive players in the game who pull as much ice time as he does.
a la carter

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:32 PM
  #381
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It's empirical data, dude. It's what ACTUALLY happened.

What's the difference between 2.86 and 3.22?

Lets assume 14 minutes a night, for 82 games. That's 1148 minutes. Divide by 60, and you get 19.13.

2.86 GAON/60 translates to 54.7 goals against.
3.22 GAON/60 translates to 61.6 goals against.

On the Penguins alone the difference between Malkin and Crosby (0.6) represented 11.5 goals against over the course of a season last year (a far more damning statistic).

And no, your gross GA number is not the same thing because that doesn't account for how often a player was on the ice for his team. Jody Shelley is terrible, but he isn't going to have a ton of goals scored against him, right? That's why rate statistics are far more useful.

Serious question, what number tells you how good a batter is in baseball as a "hitter" (i.e. getting hits). A guy with a high gross number of hits, or a guy with a high BA?
No, it's not what actually happened. That's the thing.


These numbers make it appear as if a player plays at one consistent level every game of the year. In reality, players have good games and bad games, and a single bad game will artificially increase his GAON/60 rating. Does that mean he is always playing at that artificially raised level?


I'm not saying that Malkin is a good defensive forward. Only that he's not as bad as the numbers suggest. He's on the ice for as many goals per season as Crosby is.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:34 PM
  #382
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 11,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
No, it's not what actually happened. That's the thing.


These numbers make it appear as if a player plays at one consistent level every game of the year. In reality, players have good games and bad games, and a single bad game will artificially increase his GAON/60 rating. Does that mean he is always playing at that artificially raised level?


I'm not saying that Malkin is a good defensive forward. Only that he's not as bad as the numbers suggest. He's on the ice for as many goals per season as Crosby is.
Yeah but the law of avg's make any outliers meaningless. Regardless, when it comes to metrics in sports its very difficult to interpret them without watching. I think metrics should be used as a guideline when observing a player. But numbers alone is no way to debate the value of a player.

Jtown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:38 PM
  #383
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
Yeah but the law of avg's make any outliers meaningless. Regardless, when it comes to metrics in sports its very difficult to interpret them without watching. I think metrics should be used as a guideline when observing a player. But numbers alone is no way to debate the value of a player.
I agree. The numbers suggest that Malkin is a poor defensive center. They do not confirm that notion. Only watching him can do that.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:41 PM
  #384
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
Just because two things happen does mean there is a correlation. If you look at his PP points, it has gone down 22 points over the past two season. That is close to a 50 percent reduction in PP points. Im sure if you took any high scoring winger or center and cut there points on the pp in half , they would look much more humble. Yeah his even strength play dropped as well but not severly as his PP production. I also blame his reduced EV production on a team style change.
and Ovie was hurt for most of the year... (wrist injury which KILLED his shot)

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:43 PM
  #385
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
Yeah but the law of avg's make any outliers meaningless. Regardless, when it comes to metrics in sports its very difficult to interpret them without watching. I think metrics should be used as a guideline when observing a player. But numbers alone is no way to debate the value of a player.
For instance.

Malkin's GAON/60 in 2007 2.71.

Malkin's GAON/60 in 2008 2.53

Did he suddenly forget how to play defense? No. He was never that good at D, but his offense made up for it.

His Goals For/60 in those seasons 3.92 and 3.75 respectively. When Malkin is playing well his defensive deficiency does not matter as much.

Numbers tell a lot, but I don't need them to see Malkin isn't very good at defense. If this was 09 someone could post those GAON/60 stats and claim Malkin was an ok defensive player, when in reality he's never been that good.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 04:06 PM
  #386
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
I agree. The numbers suggest that Malkin is a poor defensive center. They do not confirm that notion. Only watching him can do that.
can we sticky this and close the thread?

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 04:11 PM
  #387
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
For instance.

Malkin's GAON/60 in 2007 2.71.

Malkin's GAON/60 in 2008 2.53

Did he suddenly forget how to play defense? No. He was never that good at D, but his offense made up for it.

His Goals For/60 in those seasons 3.92 and 3.75 respectively. When Malkin is playing well his defensive deficiency does not matter as much.

Numbers tell a lot, but I don't need them to see Malkin isn't very good at defense. If this was 09 someone could post those GAON/60 stats and claim Malkin was an ok defensive player, when in reality he's never been that good.
also his line has changed over the years.

Edit: so has his team's success. If you have a really good team who dominates other clubs, your job becomes easier.

Stats as a whole should be taken with a grain of salt ALWAYS, there are too many variables to consider to say that they are a direct result of what is actually happening.

(that doesnt even get into offensive V defensive stats or specific types of stats)

...but i guess that ideology will not fly with people who live on the internet haha.

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 04:12 PM
  #388
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 11,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
and Ovie was hurt for most of the year... (wrist injury which KILLED his shot)
Had no idea about the wrist injury. Interesting they kept it so quiet.

Jtown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:15 PM
  #389
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
For instance.

Malkin's GAON/60 in 2007 2.71.

Malkin's GAON/60 in 2008 2.53

Did he suddenly forget how to play defense? No. He was never that good at D, but his offense made up for it.

His Goals For/60 in those seasons 3.92 and 3.75 respectively. When Malkin is playing well his defensive deficiency does not matter as much.

Numbers tell a lot, but I don't need them to see Malkin isn't very good at defense. If this was 09 someone could post those GAON/60 stats and claim Malkin was an ok defensive player, when in reality he's never been that good.
You need to dig deeper. Where did Malkin rank on the Pens those years?

8th worst, and 3rd worst (Hossa was worse, but that was largely because of Atlanta). Only guy worse than him that one year was Ryan Malone.

So, yeah, he's been pretty terrible even by the standards of his own team in 3 of the last 4 years with only one decent year to show for it. And, yes, you're right when his GFON/60 is up it mitigates his defensive liabilities, but his offense has dropped off considerably and his defensive numbers have actually gotten worse.

As said, the last two years... Malkin has not been that good. He's remained a good offensive player, but his defensive shortcomings have grown to be more of a problem at the same time as his offense has gone down.

Interestingly enough, and food for thought, the drop in Malkin's play has directly coincided with two important things:

1) they won the Cup.

2) his contract started.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:15 PM
  #390
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
No, it's not what actually happened. That's the thing.


These numbers make it appear as if a player plays at one consistent level every game of the year. In reality, players have good games and bad games, and a single bad game will artificially increase his GAON/60 rating. Does that mean he is always playing at that artificially raised level?


I'm not saying that Malkin is a good defensive forward. Only that he's not as bad as the numbers suggest. He's on the ice for as many goals per season as Crosby is.
No they don't. Do you seriously not understand statistics... like at all?

To quote Bill Parcells, "You are what your record says you are."

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:22 PM
  #391
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No they don't. Do you seriously not understand statistics... like at all?

To quote Bill Parcells, "You are what your record says you are."
GAON/60 is not the be all end all measure of defensive ability.

There is so much more that goes into it, and you are using this one stat to make your entire argument. I think it's YOU that doesnt understand how statistics should be used.

Like I said before, stats can suggest something, but it does not confirm a damn thing.


Hey, Daniel Sedin led the league in points! He must be the best offensive threat in the league!

Right? See what I did there? That doesnt take into consideration that Crosby missed half a season and that Crosby has been the most dominant player of the last five years. But who needs to know that when ONE stat says otherwise?

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:29 PM
  #392
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
GAON/60 is not the be all end all measure of defensive ability.

There is so much more that goes into it, and you are using this one stat to make your entire argument. I think it's YOU that doesnt understand how statistics should be used.

Like I said before, stats can suggest something, but it does not confirm a damn thing.
Dude, just above here you wrote a paragraph that implies that you don't really understand the application and usefulness of averages. You argued that a bad game would skew it in the "bad" direction. No ****. A good game skews it in the "good" direction... and ultimately, we arrive at an average for what the guy does while he is out there.

Quote:
Hey, Daniel Sedin led the league in points! He must be the best offensive threat in the league!

Right? See what I did there? That doesnt take into consideration that Crosby missed half a season and that Crosby has been the most dominant player of the last five years. But who needs to know that when ONE stat says otherwise?
Cool story. Good thing we can pull up an average points statistic!

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stati...+8+17+18+19+20

Crosby 3.98 P/60
D Sedin 3.12 P/60

Wow, you're right, if we look at averages as opposed to gross totals it does suggest that Crosby was better than Sedin last year. Too bad he got hurt.

EDIT: for the record, both Sedins and Ovechkin outscored Crosby per minute the year before. Crosby was right in a pack the year before that (and not in first). And led the league (modestly) in '07-8. So it would be false to claim that he "dominated" in comparison to some of his peers the last 5 years.


Last edited by Jester: 07-14-2011 at 05:38 PM.
Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:35 PM
  #393
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Dude, just above here you wrote a paragraph that implies that you don't really understand the application and usefulness of averages. You argued that a bad game would skew it in the "bad" direction. No ****. A good game skews it in the "good" direction... and ultimately, we arrive at an average for what the guy does while he is out there.
And not everything always averages out. Do you not understand that?

But it doesnt even matter because my point isnt that GAON/60 is simply misleading...my point is that it is completely irrelevant altogether.

Eric Staal is a pretty damn good two way center...and yet his GAON/60 is complete ****. So I'm going to trust what I have physically observed of him, NOT one stat that happens to prove your point.


Quote:
Cool story. Good thing we can pull up an average points statistic!

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stati...+8+17+18+19+20

Crosby 3.98 P/60
D Sedin 3.12 P/60

Wow, you're right, if we look at averages as opposed to gross totals it does suggest that Crosby was better than Sedin last year. Too bad he got hurt.
And my point just flew over your head. By saying Sedin is a better player because he outscored Crosby, I'm ignoring a whole host of other stats and attributes that refute my claim.

Just like you're ignoring a whole host of things that my refute your claim that Malkin is one of the worst defensive forward in the NHL.



STATS DONT MEAN EVERYTHING

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:44 PM
  #394
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
And not everything always averages out. Do you not understand that?

But it doesnt even matter because my point isnt that GAON/60 is simply misleading...my point is that it is completely irrelevant altogether.

Eric Staal is a pretty damn good two way center...and yet his GAON/60 is complete ****. So I'm going to trust what I have physically observed of him, NOT one stat that happens to prove your point.
Since when? If he was so damn good defensively, he should stop getting scored on so much.

There is NOTHING misleading about GAON/60. It is an empirical stat. The player was on the ice for X minutes and had Y goals scored against. That's literally as basic as they *ing get.

And you can trust your physical observations all you want, but you're simply ignoring that human beings SUCK at objectively remembering reality with any accuracy. So your "physical observations" are worth about **** all in quick order if you don't back 'em up with actual facts.

Quote:
And my point just flew over your head. By saying Sedin is a better player because he outscored Crosby, I'm ignoring a whole host of other stats and attributes that refute my claim.

Just like you're ignoring a whole host of things that my refute your claim that Malkin is one of the worst defensive forward in the NHL.



STATS DONT MEAN EVERYTHING
Dude, you had no point. You created a paper tiger (a dumb one) which was easily burnt to the ground by noting that there is in fact a stat that nullifies the very claim you were trying to make (that we could not quantify the threat Crosby represented on the ice). We can. It's a completely straightforward rate statistic, which shows that Crosby was outproducing everyone in the NHL last year.

And, related to the terrible attack on GAON you've attempted, in your argument you displayed the very *ing reason you rely on averages.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:44 PM
  #395
Appleyard
Registered User
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 6,396
vCash: 500
Sorry get off track here (shouldn't really be apologizing on this board I suppose, it is the done thing!) But why does it seem the concensus in N.A. is that football (soccer), is such a physically demanding, hard sport to play? Is it because you are not great at it? (though the progression of your national program in the last ten years is very impressive, especially when you consider China have thrown billions into theirs and they are still a bag of *****!) Seriously, over here evreyone is imersed in soccer from the day you are born, especially in the inner cities of Manchester, Liverpool and London, and it is not at all taxing to play compared to other sports, anyone from any other sport has almost no problem playing or training.

Premier league players train for a max of 3-4 hours a day (I know as my cousin played for Man City, though very briefly), just do a mile jog warm up, shuttle runs, skills then practice game, set pieces, and the intensity is very laid back, with usually one or two days off a week, and much of the gym work is optional. The average midfielder, the position who run the most, moves about 5-6 miles in a game, over 90 minutes, a mile every 15-18 mins, and that includes walking and sidestepping, you get massive rest periods as a defender or forward, which account to about 10-15 mins during play when you count the ball going out of play, the play being away from you.

Though the change of pace does mean that you need to be switched on, there is not much tactical awareness needed to play at a high level, look at Beckham, he was nearly kicked out of his 'soccer school', due to lack of academic achievement, when most of the players there get less than 5 GSCE's. He must have an IQ of about 80 (I'm being kind). Granted, there are some absolute specimins playing, Micah Richards, Nedum Onouha, Didier Drogba, C. Ronaldo to name a few, but you don't need to be, just physically fit.

Believe me, Rugby (both formats), American Football, Boxing and Waterpolo are far harder to train and play/fight, and you need to be in far better shape to compete to a similar level. All four need more strength, Rugby and American football more speed, Rugby, Boxing and Waterpolo more endurance, all more tactical awareness. If you want a comparison, I played against Kyle Eastmond (probably the most talented player in English rugby atm) at my highschool, and he was untouchable, and Vinny Finigan at college (who was in U-21 GB, premier league player), same there. Trained with Anthony Crolla (British Lightweight and Super Featherweight champion, top 40 at his weight in the world), and died trying to keep up with him running after 2 miles, trained and played with Ed Scott (best waterpolo keeper last year in Europe), Sean Ryder and Mike Bourne (GB waterpolo players), and they are something else physically.

On the other hand, played with or against Ishmael Miller (Engand U-21 footballer and premier league player) and James Tarkowski (Division 1, Oldham player) and Danny Philliskirk (Chelsea and England u-17 player), and yeah, they were very skilled and brilliant players (I am crap tbf compared to playing waterpolo and rugby), but the level of fitness they had, while impressive, is not in the same class as the others. Sorry for ranting, but I am at a total loss to explain why north americans especially believe football, soccer, is so elite physically. Who can't run 100 metres sub-12-12.5, and runs 5-6 miles over 90 mins (if you are fit that is) the skill in football is the hard bit, running fast with the ball, ball placement, dribbling, marking tight but not enough to let them knock it and go, and is elite, but the physical strain is not.


Last edited by Appleyard: 07-14-2011 at 06:04 PM. Reason: Forgot my paragraphs!
Appleyard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:46 PM
  #396
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
paragraphs are important.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:51 PM
  #397
Appleyard
Registered User
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 6,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
paragraphs are important.
Just edited it before I got your reminder, my English teaching mother would crucify me if she would have seen that post un-edited!

Appleyard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:53 PM
  #398
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Dude, just above here you wrote a paragraph that implies that you don't really understand the application and usefulness of averages. You argued that a bad game would skew it in the "bad" direction. No ****. A good game skews it in the "good" direction... and ultimately, we arrive at an average for what the guy does while he is out there.



Cool story. Good thing we can pull up an average points statistic!

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stati...+8+17+18+19+20

Crosby 3.98 P/60
D Sedin 3.12 P/60

Wow, you're right, if we look at averages as opposed to gross totals it does suggest that Crosby was better than Sedin last year. Too bad he got hurt.

EDIT: for the record, both Sedins and Ovechkin outscored Crosby per minute the year before. Crosby was right in a pack the year before that (and not in first). And led the league (modestly) in '07-8. So it would be false to claim that he "dominated" in comparison to some of his peers the last 5 years.
you take some stats and ignore others??

career +/- +25

clearly shows malkin is the worst defensive player in the game

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 06:00 PM
  #399
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,272
vCash: 500
hahaha, +/-

Lidstrom was a minus player last season, Carle was +30. Does that mean Carle was better defensively than Lidstrom last season?

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 06:03 PM
  #400
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appleyard View Post
Sorry get off track here (shouldn't really be apologizing on this board I suppose, it is the done thing!) But why does it seem the concensus in N.A. is that football (soccer), is such a physically demanding, hard sport to play? Is it because you are not great at it? (though the progression of your national program in the last ten years is very impressive, especially when you consider China have thrown billions into theirs and they are still a bag of *****!) Seriously, over here evreyone is imersed in soccer from the day you are born, especially in the inner cities of Manchester, Liverpool and London, and it is not at all taxing to play compared to other sports, anyone from any other sport has almost no problem playing or training.

Premier league players train for a max of 3-4 hours a day (I know as my cousin played for Man City, though very briefly), just do a mile jog warm up, shuttle runs, skills then practice game, set pieces, and the intensity is very laid back, with usually one or two days off a week, and much of the gym work is optional. The average midfielder, the position who run the most, moves about 5-6 miles in a game, over 90 minutes, a mile every 15-18 mins, and that includes walking and sidestepping, you get massive rest periods as a defender or forward, which account to about 10-15 mins during play when you count the ball going out of play, the play being away from you.

Though the change of pace does mean that you need to be switched on, there is not much tactical awareness needed to play at a high level, look at Beckham, he was nearly kicked out of his 'soccer school', due to lack of academic achievement, when most of the players there get less than 5 GSCE's. He must have an IQ of about 80 (I'm being kind). Granted, there are some absolute specimins playing, Micah Richards, Nedum Onouha, Didier Drogba, C. Ronaldo to name a few, but you don't need to be, just physically fit.

Believe me, Rugby (both formats), American Football, Boxing and Waterpolo are far harder to train and play/fight, and you need to be in far better shape to compete to a similar level. All four need more strength, Rugby and American football more speed, Rugby, Boxing and Waterpolo more endurance, all more tactical awareness. If you want a comparison, I played against Kyle Eastmond (probably the most talented player in English rugby atm) at my highschool, and he was untouchable, and Vinny Finigan at college (who in U-21 GB), same there, and trained with Anthony Crolla (British Lightweight and Super Featherweight champion, top 40 at his weight in the world), and died trying to keep up with him running after 2 miles, trained and played with Ed Scott (best waterpolo keeper last year in Europe), Sean Ryder and Mike Bourne (GB waterpolo players), and they are something else physically.

On the other hand, played against Ishmael Miller (Engand U-21 footballer and premier league player) and James Tarkowski (Division 1, Oldham player) and Danny Philliskirk (Chelsea and England u-17 player), and yeah, they were very skilled and brilliant players (I am crap tbf compared to playing waterpolo and rugby), but the level of fitness they had, while impressive, is not in the same class as the others. Sorry for ranting, but I am at a total loss to explain why north americans especially believe football, soccer, is so elite physically. Who can't run 100 metres sub-12-12.5, and runs 5-6 miles over 90 mins (if you are fit that is) the skill in football is the hard bit, running fast with the ball, ball placement, dribbling, marking tight but not enough to let them knock it and go, and is elite, but the physical strain is not.
wall o' txt

tuckrr 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 01:13 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.