Post-Game Talk: 2/25/17 | Sharks 4 @ Mumps 1
- Thread starter Chairman Maouth
- Start date
2014-15
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...fense&minutes=50&disp=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC
3 PP mpg
4 PP pts/60
2016-17
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...fense&minutes=50&disp=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC
2 PP mpg
2 PP pts/60
He averages 2/3 the minutes and 1/2 the rate.
Both are significant.
The fact that he's missed 14 games also hurts his raw stats, but I assume you've accounted for that.
Why do you keep posting percentages instead of the raw numbers.
If he had 6 points this season instead of 4 he would be at 3.78 P/60 which is basically the same rate.
That's a 2 point difference. If you think being 2 points short through 47 games is significant then that it your perogative but that is what it is.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
That predictably sucked extremely large quantities of ass. Kept up at first, but then the Sharks realized that not only are they the Sharks, they're playing half our AHL team.
Players I still want to be on this team next year: Horvat, Stecher, Tryamkin, Hansen...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that's about it.
**** everything in the state of California.
Players I still want to be on this team next year: Horvat, Stecher, Tryamkin, Hansen...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that's about it.
**** everything in the state of California.
Because it's just as significant as toi.
Heres his 2014-15 PP scoring:
214 mins x 3.91/60= 14 points in 74 games
Now let's use his 2016-17 minutes but keep his rate at the 2014-15 level:
87 mins x 3.91/60 = 9 points in 74 games*
* Based on 5.66 points in 45 games pro-rated to 74 games to match 2014-15.
Now let's use his 2014-15 minutes but drop his rate to 2016-17 levels:
214 mins x 2.05/60 = 7 points in 74 games.
So it's a drop of 5 points when you drop his minutes but a drop of 7 points when you drop his rate.
And this is using his actual minutes and actual rates, the only thing I've done is equalized his total games played.
Why do you keep arguing the rate is "marginal"?
Look up the numbers and do the math yourself.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...fense&minutes=50&disp=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 30,378
- 26,080
I really do not understand why you are going through all these gymnastics.
It makes no sense to carry his rate from this year and apply it to ice time to a previous year. Yes, it would be a difference in 5 points for that season but I thought we were talking about this season.
In 14-15 he played 216 minutes and had 14 points. That is 6.48 P/100 or, as you prefer, 3.89 P/60. You can get this from NHL.com Link.
This year he has played 95 minutes. Had he kept his old rate he would be expected to have around 6 points this season (3.89/60*95 = 6.16). Since he only has 4 points he is therefore 2 points of his pace. This year. The year we are talking about. Literally if he scores 2 PP points in the next game he will basically be at the same pace he was two seasons ago. That is why I am considering it marginal.
Even if he gets 30 seconds of PP time next game and gets one point he will be at 5/96*60 = 3.12 P/60. I consider that to be a marginal difference. Again, you are free to believe otherwise. Statistical significance is a relative and subjective thing.
Team played very well for 40 minutes but their lack of skill eventually showed. Turning point was the Labate hit which seemed to wake up an awful Sharks team.
- Edler was outstanding tonight, except on the PP where he was terrible. Larsen was invisible except for one good PP shift.
- McEneny showed pretty well. Made good decisions with the puck and skated well. Bad line change is something that happens as a rookie and doesn't reflect on his ability. Did probably take the wrong guy on the 2-1 goal although Miller was awful there and incredibly late reacting.
- Bierga solid as always. Wish he played every game.
- Sedona were better than they've been in awhile - break seemed to help. And if this was Burrows' last game, he was excellent.
- Horvat and Eriksson didn't score but looked good together. Better effort for Eriksson who continues to be snakebit. Hansen also very good in potentially his last game.
- Sutter was decent considering his linenates. Labate had the big hit and shows feistiness but has no talent.
- Gaunce line was ok, not his best effort. Grenier had some chances with space but mucked them up.
- Miller not good tonight. Swimming everywhere, weak performance for him.
This last 20 games is going to be loooooooooooonnnnng.
- Edler was outstanding tonight, except on the PP where he was terrible. Larsen was invisible except for one good PP shift.
- McEneny showed pretty well. Made good decisions with the puck and skated well. Bad line change is something that happens as a rookie and doesn't reflect on his ability. Did probably take the wrong guy on the 2-1 goal although Miller was awful there and incredibly late reacting.
- Bierga solid as always. Wish he played every game.
- Sedona were better than they've been in awhile - break seemed to help. And if this was Burrows' last game, he was excellent.
- Horvat and Eriksson didn't score but looked good together. Better effort for Eriksson who continues to be snakebit. Hansen also very good in potentially his last game.
- Sutter was decent considering his linenates. Labate had the big hit and shows feistiness but has no talent.
- Gaunce line was ok, not his best effort. Grenier had some chances with space but mucked them up.
- Miller not good tonight. Swimming everywhere, weak performance for him.
This last 20 games is going to be loooooooooooonnnnng.
ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
Ehlers - 48 pts
Tkachuk - 41 pts
Horvat - 40 pts
"Fool me once shame on you....fool me twice....you are not going to fool me another time"
George Walker Bush
I gave you a very simple example above. The drop in rate has impacted his totals by a greater raw amount than the drop in average minutes. The only thing that has impacted it more is the fact that he has also missed 14 games, which is perhaps why rates are a better way to look at it than raw numbers. Otherwise you're getting messed up by the simple fact that he hasn't played every game.
Now I have no idea what you consider marginal however you cannot on one hand call the impact of his rate drop "marginal" and not do the same then for the impact of his minutes drop. The impact of rate > the impact of TOI. If one is marginal - however you choose to define marginal - then so is the other.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
This is the weirdest debate I have ever had.
I have made the exact same point in three consecutive posts. I will make it four.
If Alex Edler had 2 more PP points this season (yes, in 47 games,) he would be at the same rate as he's had throughout his career. That is something he could potentially do in his next game and it would not be all that crazy. If a player could potentially move up to his normal rates in one game, then I do not consider his deviance from that rate to be particularly significant.
If Ryan Miler normally has a .915 Save% and was at .860 you would consider that significant right? Except if it has only been 2 games and a 25-of-26 performance can put him back to his normal rate.
The fact that he has missed 14 games and the fact that he has had considerable less ice time is exactly why the reduction in rate is not that significant. If he had played 2 minutes and was at 0.00 that would not be significant either even though it would be an infinite% reduction.
me2
Go ahead foot
None of it matters to much tbh, 2 points off could be nothing at all on such small sample sizes
It's amazing that Markstrom still isn't getting starts when the season is done and he has a *three year extension* and we don't even know what we have because he never god damned plays.
That's the biggest reason to trade Miller—to just let Markstrom be the guy so we can find out if he can play sustainably good with a heavy workload.
That's the biggest reason to trade Miller—to just let Markstrom be the guy so we can find out if he can play sustainably good with a heavy workload.
Don't think the score was indicative of the play. Canucks got stoned by Jones and, all in all, made a good effort. SJ plays like this and they will go no where in the playoffs. Kinda of mailed it in but given the plague-like conditions surrounding the Canucks, that was enough.
Thought Larsen and Grenier (did he get benched or was he just MIA) confirmed they are nothing like good enough. Giving up a draft choice for Larsen now seems idiotic. Of course, much of what Benning does seems this.
Hutton, to me, played very well at times. Obviously made the bad turnover in the third (but defensemen on both teams committed multiple turnovers) and had some issues around his crease but I think he has looked more mobile and quicker since coming back from injury. Maybe back to a playing weight that better suits him.
McEneny was jittery at times but settled down and wasn't bad in the third. Have to like the way he plays with his head up and can see the play. But there were times when he got manhandled around the net and misread the coverage in the defensive zone (most particularly on the critical second goal). I think he will establish he is smart with the puck and is a good passer. My opinion also that he will need another year in Utica where hopefully he can dominate.
LaBate made himself a factor and had a decent game. Surprising how some players can come up and look as good as or even better than they look in the minors. Whether LaBate can maintain any level of acceptable play will be the question.
Sedins had one of those games where they were good in the offensive zone but not good in their own zone. Early in the game the heavy forecheck the Canucks were putting on broke down every time the Sedins came out. (just not their game) Did think the Sedins moved the puck very well on the PPs.
Horvat had good game but blew some great scoring chances. Canucks will have to pay this player.
Hopefully Sbisa is healthy enough to get traded. He had fairly good game and I thought the defense very much broke down when he left the game. Real confusion set in.
Biega got burned on the late Shark PP but otherwise had some jump in his game and was one of out better players. Larsen getting played before Biega is one of the biggest blunders of the season.
Gaunce line started ok but had trouble as the game went on. Gaunce looked poor in the third when he started lurching out of the play. Problem right now with Gaunce is that he can get on the forecheck pretty well but can do next to nothing when he gets the puck on his stick. In the end that is not much more than a player like LaBate can do.
Boucher was letting go with some hard shots from various angles but he had trouble on the back check and supporting the play in his own end as the game went on. Becoming more evident that Boucher has a one way game and if he isn't scoring is not going to help you much.
Sutter looked like one Canuck who was hurt by the break. Playing well recently but not really a factor at all in the game.
Anyhow, team, given the state of their health and the up-coming schedule, looks primed for a possible bottom three finish and that might be a positive that even Benning can't screw up too badly (although doubts even here have to exist). Also, we can maybe have some limited hope that Benning might even get something done at the trade deadline. Surely these bozos can't muff up this so horribly again. Or can they.
Thought Larsen and Grenier (did he get benched or was he just MIA) confirmed they are nothing like good enough. Giving up a draft choice for Larsen now seems idiotic. Of course, much of what Benning does seems this.
Hutton, to me, played very well at times. Obviously made the bad turnover in the third (but defensemen on both teams committed multiple turnovers) and had some issues around his crease but I think he has looked more mobile and quicker since coming back from injury. Maybe back to a playing weight that better suits him.
McEneny was jittery at times but settled down and wasn't bad in the third. Have to like the way he plays with his head up and can see the play. But there were times when he got manhandled around the net and misread the coverage in the defensive zone (most particularly on the critical second goal). I think he will establish he is smart with the puck and is a good passer. My opinion also that he will need another year in Utica where hopefully he can dominate.
LaBate made himself a factor and had a decent game. Surprising how some players can come up and look as good as or even better than they look in the minors. Whether LaBate can maintain any level of acceptable play will be the question.
Sedins had one of those games where they were good in the offensive zone but not good in their own zone. Early in the game the heavy forecheck the Canucks were putting on broke down every time the Sedins came out. (just not their game) Did think the Sedins moved the puck very well on the PPs.
Horvat had good game but blew some great scoring chances. Canucks will have to pay this player.
Hopefully Sbisa is healthy enough to get traded. He had fairly good game and I thought the defense very much broke down when he left the game. Real confusion set in.
Biega got burned on the late Shark PP but otherwise had some jump in his game and was one of out better players. Larsen getting played before Biega is one of the biggest blunders of the season.
Gaunce line started ok but had trouble as the game went on. Gaunce looked poor in the third when he started lurching out of the play. Problem right now with Gaunce is that he can get on the forecheck pretty well but can do next to nothing when he gets the puck on his stick. In the end that is not much more than a player like LaBate can do.
Boucher was letting go with some hard shots from various angles but he had trouble on the back check and supporting the play in his own end as the game went on. Becoming more evident that Boucher has a one way game and if he isn't scoring is not going to help you much.
Sutter looked like one Canuck who was hurt by the break. Playing well recently but not really a factor at all in the game.
Anyhow, team, given the state of their health and the up-coming schedule, looks primed for a possible bottom three finish and that might be a positive that even Benning can't screw up too badly (although doubts even here have to exist). Also, we can maybe have some limited hope that Benning might even get something done at the trade deadline. Surely these bozos can't muff up this so horribly again. Or can they.
So you are abandoning your original contention that his drop in points is exclusively due to his lower PP minutes?
Now it's that he hasn't actually dropped at all, outside of missing 14 games?
What a waste of time.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
You know that isn't what he is saying, and are just being a dink for the hell of it.
He said many times that what seems to be a large difference in /60 rates, but is very little in raw numbers.
No.
His drop in production is due to his drop in PP minutes.
The difference in rate between 4.21 P/100 in 95 minutes and 6.15 in 216 minutes is not statistically significant because it amounts to only two fewer points. IF he had played 200 minutes and still had the lower rate, THEN the reduction in rate would be significant, yes, but due to the small sample of his actual time, the difference in rate is actually marginal enough to be meaningless. It is noise.
My contention is that if he had more minutes his rate would probably regress to his career norms. Not that his lower rate over more minutes would not be significant. I don't believe he would stay at the same terrible rate over a full season of 200 minutes like he used to get. Do you understand now?
Hypothetically, if he had played 10 minutes and had 0 points then would you agree that the difference in rate (0.00 vs 6.15) is actually meaningless - since even having 1 point would jump him to 10.00 - and the main difference is only having 10 minutes instead of 200?
We seem to be talking past each other. I don't think we even disagree with each other that Edler's "disappointing" point totals are due more to PP play than anything else. His 11 ES points are actually the same as last year in 5 fewer games and only one fewer than the 12 he put up two seasons ago in 74 games.
Anyhow, team, given the state of their health and the up-coming schedule, looks primed for a possible bottom three finish and that might be a positive that even Benning can't screw up too badly (although doubts even here have to exist). Also, we can maybe have some limited hope that Benning might even get something done at the trade deadline. Surely these bozos can't muff up this so horribly again. Or can they.
Man even if they do pull off a decent deadline we're just in such a deep pit in terms of depth and talent on this team, with no real hope of being a solid team for several seasons. Had Benning not gone for this age gap BS and acquired and stockpiled picks and prospects instead of bad waiver fodder NHL players we'd be so much further along in our rebuild.
Not to mention absolute flubs in the first round and lack of 2nd round picks. We could be sitting here with a forward core built around Horvat Ehlers Tkachuck, and possibly Pastranak (if you feel pretty generous with hindsight).
We have one really good and exciting young player in Horvat. The rest of the drafted guys we just don't have enough info at the pro level to get excited, let alone them even being signed. But say Boeser and Gaudette do pan out nicely, we're still really poorly constructed and have horrible issues with organizational depth, a poor development system, poor pro scouting, poor coaching, a couple good scouts mixed in with a lot of trash scouts, ownership that gets too hands on, a puppet of a president and a bottom-3 general manager who is in way over his head.
That doesn't hold. Rate impacts points to exactly the same degree as TOI. I gave a simple and clear example of that above using real
rates and minutes from 2 recent seasons. It's honesty frustrating to have to argue simple math with someone just because they don't want to admit their initial post was incorrect.
No offense but I seem to have a better grasp of statistics than you do.
It is not a failure of simple math. It is a failure to recognize that rates in a small sample are not particularly meaningful. You are applying his rate over a tiny 95-minute sample to his 216 minutes of two seasons ago to argue that the difference in rate is significant. Yes, it would be significant if he held that same rate over 216 minutes but that is not likely.
The precipitous drop in his rate is more likely explained by a tiny sample than by an actual drop in his ability. That is the point that you are failing to acknowledge.
The problem is you are using significance in the sense that you cannot project his future rates reliably from it. While this maybe true it isn't necessary to even establish significance when talking about why his points are down in the past. This is not about projections but simply explaining the math in what has already happened. He numbers are down because he minutes AND his rate is down. Significance isn't needed here. It's a mathematical relationship.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Online Series: Witcher season 4: Cavill out and Liam Hemsworth in
- Latest: trojansoilers
-
Sheldon Keefe hired as new head coach of the Devils- Latest: DudeWhereIsMakar
-
Value of: Linus Ullmark to your goalie needy team- Latest: BigGoalBrad
Upcoming events
-
Gold Medal PICK ONLY ONE TEAM - 2024 IIHF World Championship - ChampionWagers: 2Staked: $150.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-