Around the NHL 2013-2014 Part II: The Playoff Edition

[JmanWingsFan]

So if Nash has such great possession numbers, why isn't it showing up on the scoresheet?

He's getting paid an elite forward's salary. An elite forward puts pucks in the net.

Have you not read a SINGLE THING I HAVE WRITTEN AT ALL.

You know what? No. I'm not requiting anything anymore. You can go back up the page or back a page. I've answered this question more times than necessary. I'm not going to humor you guys any more on this.

 

[PullHard]

I think we all agree with you Jman, Nash is still doing what he typically does. He is hanging onto the puck, taking shots, helping his team by doing things conducive to scoring a goal and generating offense in a general sense. He is a good player and his skill allows his corsi numbers to be as strong as they are.

All we are criticizing is the fact that he hasn't been able to show a "killer instinct" over the last ~10 games (and beyond).

Now, 26 games isn't a huge sample size, I will grant you that, but when they take place over several seasons they start to show a bit of a trend. I don't think you can argue that. Seems like a lot of teams with Nash on them don't play a lot of playoff hockey.

All we are saying is - if he was really worth $7.8M a year, wouldn't his numbers (production-wise) be up closer to the better playoff performers rather than being so flat? Guys like Z and Krejci have good numbers all the way around for the most part, so why is Nash only looking good on Corsi paper and not on boxscores? Again, this goes 26 games deep over a few years in the playoffs throughout his 20s, it isn't all from a month long window. I think the context of the 26 games is important in this case.

 

[Bench]

I've watched a lot of Nash in New York. He's generating lots of chances...

The knock, though, is that he's not burying any of them. And it's not bad luck. He's just taking bad shots. He's like a huge Dan Cleary out there right now.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Have you not read a SINGLE THING I HAVE WRITTEN AT ALL.

You know what? No. I'm not requiting anything anymore. You can go back up the page or back a page. I've answered this question more times than necessary. I'm not going to humor you guys any more on this.

Not everyone needs to buy Corsi alone hook line and sinker, it might frustrate you, but what is your rebuttal to why hasn't he scored? We have asked that one over and over as well AND YOU HAVEN"T ANSWERED IT. If it is just sample size is all you can find then fine one of the big problems with Corsi is it tells you some things without taking into account how glorious some of those chances are, how meaningful some of that puck possession is. Does Nash have a lot of the puck, is he shooting a lot? Yes, is he effective doing it, well a rather big no right now and we are getting to a sample size that is pretty good in terms of post-season play where he has been underwhelming and a part of his lack of post-season experience falls back on the fact he hasn't been able to lead a team anywhere before this.

 

[The Zermanator]

Your line of reasoning is bad. It is the opposite of good reasoning, because it is based on bad premises.

I will stop you right here, because this is where you are very wrong. There is literally no difference between a hockey game played in the regular season and a hockey game played in the playoffs. The difference you are attempting to contrive is that you can win a 'championship' by winning 16 games in the playoffs.

But the fact of the matter is, it's still a hockey game. Hockey players play the game the same way they played it in the regular season. And so it stands, statistics will behave the same way they do in the regular season.

Wow. Pot, meet kettle. Really? The game is played the same way in the regular season and playoffs? Talk about a bad premise. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of mental gymnastics some people will do to try to argue against their lying eyes.

Nash's playoff sample size is plenty large enough. Players are expected to step up in the playoffs. Why? Because the level of competition ramps up, and teams have to ramp up themselves to compensate. The worst teams are out and the best teams remain. With every round that passes, the competition gets tougher.

Corsi means nothing if Nash can't produce when he reaches the playoffs, end of. Minimum of 16 games, maximum of 28. It'll always be a 'small' sample size. He needs to step up and score.

 

[14ari13]

Franzen had 2 more points than Nash this year in 11 less games at literally half the cost

just saying

True

To take a quote from Grantland:

Whole article here.

People, Sh% fluctuates in small samples. What are the playoffs? SMALL SAMPLE SIZES. Of course something like a 0.0% Sh% on 40 shots taken is well in the realm of possibility. It's a freaking small sampling over 10 games.

There is no logic in criticizing Rick Nash. He's doing what he normally does. He's just not getting results because, SURPRISE, Sh% is incredibly volatile in SMALL SAMPLE SIZES.

You make some good points, but an 8 M player is supposed to carry a team, while Nash is more like a glorified 3rd liner.

I want to replace Johan Franzen's name with Nash's in this conversation and see how strange the argument would look.

Not saying Franzen doesn't deserve criticism, but it's a funny scenario.

+1

Have you not read a SINGLE THING I HAVE WRITTEN AT ALL.

You know what? No. I'm not requiting anything anymore. You can go back up the page or back a page. I've answered this question more times than necessary. I'm not going to humor you guys any more on this.

He makes double of what Franzen makes.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

All we are criticizing is the fact that he hasn't been able to show a "killer instinct" over the last ~10 games (and beyond).

This notion is baseless and ignorant of the behavior of a hockey game. A "Killer instinct?" Rick Nash's regular season Corsi% was 54.2%. Rick Nash's postseason Corsi% is 57.9% If anything, Rick Nash has INCREASED his production in the postseason. There is no lack of "Killer instinct." It would be more accurate to argue that his "Killer Instinct" has gotten better.

What you blissfully ignore in order to maintain your silly narrative is the fact that scoring goals is dependent on Sh%, which has been demonstrated to have wild variance in small samples. It would be more accurate to say that Rick Nash has been stonewalled by Goaltenders, who are also in control of their Save%, which is essentially the inverse of Sh%. I'm amazed that goaltending is never factored into this.

Now, 26 games isn't a huge sample size, I will grant you that, but when they take place over several seasons they start to show a bit of a trend. I don't think you can argue that.

Except, that's not how sampling works. A hockey game is a hockey game, regardless of the stakes. A team is going to play the same way they always have played. In small sample sizes, though, expect to see things like scoring going down and guys like Bryan Bickell scoring a lot of goals. A 26 game sampling, regardless of how stretched out it is, is still 26 game sample. It will always be too small to make any judgment on a player.

Seems like a lot of teams with Nash on them don't play a lot of playoff hockey.

Correlation=/=Causation. This is a basic logical fallacy. Rick Nash can't help that the Columbus Blue Jackets were a terrible organization. One team is not made by one player.

All we are saying is - if he was really worth $7.8M a year, wouldn't his numbers (production-wise) be up closer to the better playoff performers rather than being so flat?

This is nonsense. There is zero correlation between performance and the size of one's paycheck. This is the same nonsense that baseball fans spew about the size of payroll and production. Most of the top five payrolls in baseball last year failed to make the postseason. Taking this into consideration, using payroll to judge someone's performance is ever the more ludicrous.

Back to SoupNazi's analogy: If a person had a bad day or two at work, does that make him not worth the money he is being paid? No, that is absurdity. He had a bad day or two, but it's not indicative of his overall performance.

 

[Chance on Chance]

This notion is baseless and ignorant of the behavior of a hockey game. A "Killer instinct?" Rick Nash's regular season Corsi% was 54.2%. Rick Nash's postseason Corsi% is 57.9% If anything, Rick Nash has INCREASED his production in the postseason. There is no lack of "Killer instinct." It would be more accurate to argue that his "Killer Instinct" has gotten better.

His production? he has 0 goals. How many games until the sample size is big enough?

 

[Some Random Guy]

Back to SoupNazi's analogy: If a person had a bad day or two at work, does that make him not worth the money he is being paid? No, that is absurdity. He had a bad day or two, but it's not indicative of his overall performance.

To be honest, if my employee had 27 bad days, all when the company needed him the most and he's my highest paid employee and should be setting an example... He can pack his bags and go **** himself because that IS indicative of his overall performance. He's not there when the company needs him the most. He's not there when the company needs him the most. He's not there when the company needs him the most. That is how business works.

Don't even use Corsi to show me "he's setting an example" since this is clearly a business analogy. In this business analogy, Mr. Nash, my highest paid employee is expected to close deals. You need to distance yourself from Mr. Nash's water cooler and ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?".

 

[LyricalLyricist]

lol is this guy serious.

Nash is ****ing trash. if you want him, you can have him.

At the right price anyone in the league would take Nash.

 

[InjuredChoker]

To be honest, if my employee had 27 bad days, all when the company needed him the most and he's my highest paid employee and should be setting an example... He can pack his bags and go **** himself because that IS indicative of his overall performance. He's not there when the company needs him the most. He's not there when the company needs him the most. He's not there when the company needs him the most. That is how business works.

Don't even use Corsi to show me "he's setting an example" since this is clearly a business analogy. In this business analogy, Mr. Nash, my highest paid employee is expected to close deals. You need to distance yourself from Mr. Nash's water cooler and ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?".

that's little unfair, he's had some good games.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger 1 t
Leafs meetings continue in Vegas. The fact Carlyle hasn't been fired to this point indicates he will back for another season on Leafs bench.

 

[PullHard]

Long cliffnotes blah blah I took Data Management in high school, too, ya know?

At the end of the day, narratives and corsi numbers are all irrelevant. Nash needs to score a goal or else people will say "Wow, Nash didn't score a goal."

edit: at this point I'm unsure what you're defending. It seems like you're more concerned about shedding light about the significance of small sample sizes rather than talking about Rick Nash or hockey. As I said in my chopped down quote of yours, I know these things. I took math in high school. When are we allowed to say "Rick Nash needs to start scoring."? I know he is still playing the same way. I know opposing teams are ratcheting up defensive play and goalies are better than usual. So when star players don't produce we just excuse it and say "it's okay, don't worry, you don't have to score." ?

 

[ProPAIN]

Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger 1 t
Leafs meetings continue in Vegas. The fact Carlyle hasn't been fired to this point indicates he will back for another season on Leafs bench.

Well if the Leafs are known for anything, it's their impeccable timing when firing coaches and GMs.

 

[Frk It]

There is zero correlation between performance and the size of one's paycheck. This is the same nonsense that baseball fans spew about the size of payroll and production. Most of the top five payrolls in baseball last year failed to make the postseason. Taking this into consideration, using payroll to judge someone's performance is ever the more ludicrous.

Really wanted to stay clear of this discussion.

But in the world of pro sports, how can you argue the bolded?

The two are very closely tied together.

 

[14ari13]

To be honest, if my employee had 27 bad days, all when the company needed him the most and he's my highest paid employee and should be setting an example... He can pack his bags and go **** himself because that IS indicative of his overall performance. He's not there when the company needs him the most. He's not there when the company needs him the most. He's not there when the company needs him the most. That is how business works.

Don't even use Corsi to show me "he's setting an example" since this is clearly a business analogy. In this business analogy, Mr. Nash, my highest paid employee is expected to close deals. You need to distance yourself from Mr. Nash's water cooler and ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?".

I think that's it.

 

[Eastopia]

Do you want to know what a team full of corsi numbers looks like?


This

This

This

This


AND THIS

Cool! Do you want to know what good corsi numbers but no goals look like?

 

[JmanWingsFan]

His production? he has 0 goals.

He is generating more shots on goal, missed shots on goal, shots that are blocked on a per 20 minute basis than in the regular season. The percentage of all corsi events that Rick Nash and his on-ice teammates are generating are greater in the postseason than in the regular season.

Not only is Rick Nash doing the same things he's done in the regular season. HE'S DOING IT BETTER IN THE POSTSEASON.

But, as I have been saying OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, GOALS are a product of SHOOTING PERCENTAGE which is ERRATIC in SMALL SAMPLE SIZES.

How many games until the sample size is big enough?

An appropriate sample size is generally several seasons worth of data. Not postseason. Actual 82 game seasons. Now, if we are going to arbitrarily make the postseason somehow different from the regular season, we don't have an appropriate sample size.

But if there isn't a difference, we already have many seasons worth of Data on Rick Nash, data that suggests that all of this judgment is bogus, and that Nash is running through a cold streak where he isn't being rewarded for his play.

 

[Laser Rayzor]

My first thought when I came into this thread to see what you guys thought about the playoffs and I'm greeted to almost 2 solid pages of Rick Nash and advanced stats.

 

[Chance on Chance]

He is generating more shots on goal, missed shots on goal, shots that are blocked on a per 20 minute basis than in the regular season. The percentage of all corsi events that Rick Nash and his on-ice teammates are generating are greater in the postseason than in the regular season.

Not only is Rick Nash doing the same things he's done in the regular season. HE'S DOING IT BETTER IN THE POSTSEASON.

But, as I have been saying OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, GOALS are a product of SHOOTING PERCENTAGE which is ERRATIC in SMALL SAMPLE SIZES.



An appropriate sample size is generally several seasons worth of data. Not postseason. Actual 82 game seasons. Now, if we are going to arbitrarily make the postseason somehow different from the regular season, we don't have an appropriate sample size.

But if there isn't a difference, we already have many seasons worth of Data on Rick Nash, data that suggests that all of this judgment is bogus, and that Nash is running through a cold streak where he isn't being rewarded for his play.

Not scoring goals apparently. He's paid to score goals and isnt. Corsis a good/different way to look at thing but not the end all be all.

Several is such a cop out answer. The playoffs matter. Are we just supposed to beleive that every playoffs is a cold streak? There is clearly a difference between playoff and regular season hockey.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

At the right price anyone in the league would take Nash.

I think he's movable, but that the team that trades for him will massively regret it.

 

[Chance on Chance]

My first thought when I came into this thread to see what you guys thought about the playoffs and I'm greeted to almost 2 solid pages of Rick Nash and advanced stats.

A rat could defiantly take a scorpion. But I think these playoffs have been pretty exciting. The Montreal series has been a good watch for me and I was surprised that Minny pulled out their last win

 

[JmanWingsFan]

At the end of the day, narratives and corsi numbers are all irrelevant. Nash needs to score a goal or else people will say "Wow, Nash didn't score a goal."

It's this type of thinking that is why the Toronto Maple Leafs are one of the most laughably run organizations in the league. Yeah, screw what the metrics tell us are correlative to winning. It's all about heart, grit, and facepunchers man.

edit: at this point I'm unsure what you're defending.

This doesn't surprise me. No one to this point has shown any interest in following anything I've said thus far.

It seems like you're more concerned about shedding light about the significance of small sample sizes rather than talking about Rick Nash or hockey.

No. That is not what I am concerned about. Why don't your read every last post I have made on this. Perhaps light will be shed on what I have been arguing.

When are we allowed to say "Rick Nash needs to start scoring."? I know he is still playing the same way. I know opposing teams are ratcheting up defensive play and goalies are better than usual. So when star players don't produce we just excuse it and say "it's okay, don't worry, you don't have to score." ?

When play actually warrants it. Johan Franzen not only didn't score, but he was not even a decent possession player. Johan Franzen's play deserved criticism, because he didn't play well. Rick Nash has not been Johan Franzen in the playoffs. He's been still a good player doing all the things that are correlated with winning. Why would anyone criticize someone who is playing well and is doing the right things? Because in a small sampling he isn't being rewarded because the opposing goaltender is stopping all of his shots?

Really wanted to stay clear of this discussion.

But in the world of pro sports, how can you argue the bolded?

The two are very closely tied together.

Only three of the top 10 spending teams in the MLB made the playoffs last year. Only three of the top 10 spending teams in the NFL made the playoffs last year.
Large number of dollars spent=/= performance.

How money works is that owners give scarce talent lots of money to play. The better a person is skilled, the bigger paycheck he gets. This, however, does not mean the player should be expected to or will sustain amazing play at every point in time. That's just not realistic, and his contrary to what all statistics have demonstrated. Rick Nash is getting paid well because he has performed well in the past. But, you know, sometimes a player gets locked in a rut. For Rick Nash, it came at a horrible time in the playoffs just as everyone else on the roster has swooned.

But sure, let's let a bad stretch of a couple of games cloud our judgment of a player who has been very good for his career.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Only three of the top 10 spending teams in the MLB made the playoffs last year. Only three of the top 10 spending teams in the NFL made the playoffs last year.

have similar data for NHL? hockey forum and discussion after all.

seems to me that NHL teams that spend more money, tend to win a lot more.

this season, only 2 of the top 10 in spending missed the playoffs. and only 2 of the bottom 10 made it.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

I think he's movable, but that the team that trades for him will massively regret it.

That price might include retained salary.

Personally on my team(habs) I'd like him if he was paid less. I'm sure he'd be a good fit for anyone at say 5-6 mil instead of 7.8.