Player Discussion J.T. Miller Part II

[Leetch3]

the only flaw/risk i see with /60 is sample size when looking at a guy that plays very few minutes. if you took a guy that plays 24:00/night and isolated random 5 minute segments you could drastically skew his numbers good or bad...its only over time that you can get more 'real data' to see that those averages are valid. but that's is an issue with just about any stat and really nothing you can do about it

 

[Inferno]

 

[NickyFotiu]

the only flaw/risk i see with /60 is sample size when looking at a guy that plays very few minutes. if you took a guy that plays 24:00/night and isolated random 5 minute segments you could drastically skew his numbers good or bad...its only over time that you can get more 'real data' to see that those averages are valid. but that's is an issue with just about any stat and really nothing you can do about it

Its a stat that has some use but definitely has some large contextual flaws as well. Few if any players are as fast or strong in their 30th minute of a game as they were in their 10th minute of a game but per 60 does not distinguish a guys 30th minute from another players 10th minute. Few people are as fresh in the 60th second of a shift than they were in the 30th second of a shift so the guys that coaches ask to play longer shifts are at a disadvantage to a guy going full blast for 20-30 seconds. Players are only human. When their shifts get extra long there are diminishing returns.

 

[True Blue]

He is the most productive even strength goal scorer. Not the best. There's a difference.

The term that was used was "the best". Full stop.

Most productive? Ok. Using extrapolated stats to produce extrapolated results, you get that he is a more productive goal scorer at ES than Ovechkin or Kane. Or Malkin. Or Crosby. You can truly tell me that you believe that he is a more productive ES goal scorer than those 4? If you do, does that not mean that you want him out there in ES situations more than those guys? If you say no, then I need to question why you would want the most productive even strength goal scorer on the ice.

 

[True Blue]

the only flaw/risk i see with /60 is sample size when looking at a guy that plays very few minutes. if you took a guy that plays 24:00/night and isolated random 5 minute segments you could drastically skew his numbers good or bad...its only over time that you can get more 'real data' to see that those averages are valid. but that's is an issue with just about any stat and really nothing you can do about it

It is the same thing taking a platoon players numbers in baseball. You can have a left hitter that destroys righty pitchers, but cannot hit a lick off of a left. You then take those numbers and extrapolate them over a specific period of time and can create a case where you have one of the better players in baseball. Which is why blind extrapolation without any context is outright silly.

 

[silverfish]

The term that was used was "the best". Full stop.

Most productive? Ok. Using extrapolated stats to produce extrapolated results, you get that he is a more productive goal scorer at ES than Ovechkin or Kane. Or Malkin. Or Crosby. You can truly tell me that you believe that he is a more productive ES goal scorer than those 4? If you do, does that not mean that you want him out there in ES situations more than those guys? If you say no, then I need to question why you would want the most productive even strength goal scorer on the ice.

Since Nash became a Ranger in 2012-2013, here are the 5v5 numbers for these players: (Corsica).

Ovechkin: 368 games, 5339 minutes, 97 goals
Kane: 341 games, 5308 minutes, 96 goals
Crosby: 348 games, 5204 minutes, 92 goals
Nash: 315 games, 4076 minutes, 86 goals
Malkin: 279 games, 3295 minutes, 70 goals

Take a really close look at these numbers, and make sure that this is the hill you want to die on for hating against per 60 metrics.

I can truly tell you that Rick Nash, since 2012-2013, is the most productive 5v5 goal scorer of this group of players.

Do I want him out there in 5v5 situations more than these guys? I don't know. That's not what these metrics tell me. I need more information.

 

[True Blue]

Take a really close look at these numbers, and make sure that this is the hill you want to die on for hating against per 60 metrics.

It is absolutely the hill that I am climbing. Because I would take ANY of those players on the ice ahead of Nash without a second thought. This is not dying on the hill. This is where the rubber hits the road. If you spoke to ANY NHL coach or GM, I speak pretty confidently that they would tell you the same thing. If spoke to fans of the entire NHL, again, I am pretty sure that Nash is not touching the ice at the expense of ANY of those players.

I can truly tell you that Rick Nash, since 2012-2013, is the most productive 5v5 goal scorer of this group of players.

According to the extrapolation metrics.

Do I want him out there in 5v5 situations more than these guys? I don't know. That's not what these metrics tell me. I need more information.

Oh, BS. Come on now. You tout him as the most productive 5v5 goal scorer and yet you are telling me that you are not sure if you would take him on the ice ahead of those players? Sorry, that is having your cake and eating it too. Why would you not take the most productive goal scorer on the ice ahead of less productive ones? Either you believe him to be the most productive or you do not.

 

[NickyFotiu]

After all the Brandon Pirri 5 on 5 G /60 posts of last offseason I thought we might take these stats with more of a grain of salt.

 

[silverfish]

It is absolutely the hill that I am climbing. Because I would take ANY of those players on the ice ahead of Nash without a second thought. This is not dying on the hill. This is where the rubber hits the road. If you spoke to ANY NHL coach or GM, I speak pretty confidently that they would tell you the same thing. If spoke to fans of the entire NHL, again, I am pretty sure that Nash is not touching the ice at the expense of ANY of those players.

According to the extrapolation metrics.

Oh, BS. Come on now. You tout him as the most productive 5v5 goal scorer and yet you are telling me that you are not sure if you would take him on the ice ahead of those players? Sorry, that is having your cake and eating it too. Why would you not take the most productive goal scorer on the ice ahead of less productive ones? Either you believe him to be the most productive or you do not.

We can move this to advanced stats thread if you want to continue, but I'm so tired of defending per 60 metrics. You don't like them? That's your prerogative.

Just realize the hill you're choosing to die on consists of a guy who has scored 11 less goals in 53 less games and 1300 less minutes than another guy. You don't think we should try and level the playing field on those numbers? That's fine. Either way, it's still "only" 11 goals over the course of five seasons.

 

[True Blue]

We can move this to advanced stats thread if you want to continue, but I'm so tired of defending per 60 metrics. You don't like them? That's your prerogative.

That has not at all been the point that I have been making. No need to skew the debate.

Just realize the hill you're choosing to die on consists of a guy who has scored 11 less goals in 53 less games and 1300 less minutes than another guy. You don't think we should try and level the playing field on those numbers? That's fine. Either way, it's still "only" 11 goals over the course of five seasons.

Then it looks like you get to die on a hill with two bumps. The first one being that Nash is the most productive 5v5 player in the NHL. You may not have said those exact words, but when comparing them to generational talents and stating that he is more productive 5v5 than them, that is exactly what you are doing. And of course, the second hill is where you truly stumbled and fell when stating that even though one player is more productive 5v5 if you would want him on the ice when compared to players that are less productive.

 

[True Blue]

After all the Brandon Pirri 5 on 5 G /60 posts of last offseason I thought we might take these stats with more of a grain of salt.

You would have thought. But there is a section of posters that chooses to only analyze players performance with a spread sheet.

 

[Thirty One]

Oh, BS. Come on now. You tout him as the most productive 5v5 goal scorer and yet you are telling me that you are not sure if you would take him on the ice ahead of those players? Sorry, that is having your cake and eating it too. Why would you not take the most productive goal scorer on the ice ahead of less productive ones? Either you believe him to be the most productive or you do not.

Because the others are not paid exclusively to score goals.

 

[True Blue]

Because the others are not paid exclusively to score goals.

Hold on. The GM of the Caps is on the phone. He says that scoring goals is the most important thing that Ovechkin does for the team. The Chicago GM is on hold on the other line.

 

[Thirty One]

Hold on. The GM of the Caps is on the phone. He says that scoring goals is the most important thing that Ovechkin does for the team. The Chicago GM is on hold on the other line.

Tell them I have no argument there. Also tell them that Rick Nash has been a more efficient goal scorer at 5-on-5 than he has been. They will tell you that's a matter of the record and they have no dispute.

 

[silverfish]

Tell them I have no argument there. Also tell them that Rick Nash has been a more efficient goal scorer at 5-on-5 than he has been. They will tell you that's a matter of the record and they have no dispute.

 

[True Blue]

Tell them I have no argument there. Also tell them that Rick Nash has been a more efficient goal scorer at 5-on-5 than he has been. They will tell you that's a matter of the record and they have no dispute.

5v5 and the game is on the line. Would you rather have Nash, the most efficient goal scorer in 5v5, instead of any of the other players in the group on the ice? Fairly easy question.

 

[Thirty One]

5v5 and the game is on the line. Would you rather have Nash, the most efficient goal scorer in 5v5, instead of any of the other players in the group on the ice? Fairly easy question.

Crosby, Malkin, and Kane both are much more likely to set up a goal than Nash, so I would rather them for sure. I haven't thought much about Nash vs. Ovechkin in that situation. You seem to prefer Ovechkin. Sell me on why.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Crosby, Malkin, and Kane both are much more likely to set up a goal than Nash, so I would rather them for sure. I haven't thought much about Nash vs. Ovechkin in that situation. You seem to prefer Ovechkin. Sell me on why.

5-on-5, with less room to move, I would go with Nash. Open ice, 4-on-4, Ovechkin easily.

Also, when he says "Game on the line" I always think of a situation where we are trailing, pulling the goalie, and are 6-on-5, which means even less open ice to use

 

[Thirty One]

5-on-5, with less room to move, I would go with Nash. Open ice, 4-on-4, Ovechkin easily.

Also, when he says "Game on the line" I always think of a situation where we are trailing, pulling the goalie, and are 6-on-5, which means even less open ice to use

I'd imagine Nash would be less effective 6-on-5, as he's less effective (relatively) 5-on-4.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I'd imagine Nash would be less effective 6-on-5, as he's less effective (relatively) 5-on-4.

Ovechkin isn't that effective at 6-on-5 either.

 

[Leetch66]

You can utilize every stat you want to make your favorite players better or worse for whoever you are trying to convince but one thing remains the same and that is if you cannot raise your physical play/compete level /play in the dirty areas/2nd effort/ in the playoffs then you likely are a half decent golfer or like playing in the World Championships and the Rangers have an overabundance of them on the roster as currently constructed .

 

[NickyFotiu]

You guys are just goofing on me with this conversation right? For the record Id take Rick Nash over Ovey, Mike Bossy, Mario, etc in a 5 on 5 per 60 game played on Tuesdays before 6am in cities with average temps below 71 degrees.

Maybe its time to get back to the JT Miller thread.

 

[Thirty One]

You can utilize every stat you want to make your favorite players better or worse for whoever you are trying to convince but one thing remains the same and that is if you cannot raise your physical play/compete level /play in the dirty areas/2nd effort/ in the playoffs then you likely are a half decent golfer or like playing in the World Championships and the Rangers have an overabundance of them on the roster as currently constructed .

I don't imagine there's a team that's sent less players to the World Championships than the Rangers in recent history.

 

[Thirty One]

You guys are just goofing on me with this conversation right? For the record Id take Rick Nash over Ovey, Mike Bossy, Mario, etc in a 5 on 5 per 60 game played on Tuesdays before 6am in cities with average temps below 71 degrees.

Everyone knows Nash is a warm weather scorer.

If it's so plainly obvious that Ovechkin has been a better 5-on-5 scorer than Nash over that time period, I should be seeing some better arguments as to why.

I'll get you started:
Ovechkin is better than Nash at 5-on-5 because he's better at __________

 

[Leetch66]

I don't imagine there's a team that's sent less players to the World Championships than the Rangers in recent history.

That would be an interesting stat to see .