Injury Report: Matt Hunwick Shut Down For Season - Sports Hernia - Surgery Required

[Leafs87]

This year seems to have braught more then the usual amount of injuries to our better players

 

[saltming]

Who do I think should be called up...

Where is the Loov?

I will always Loov you.

My Loov.

California Loov.

Summer Loov.

I can go all day...

I lööv this post.

 

[Stephen]

Percy, Loov and Harrington to get some time?

 

[Canada4Gold]

Percy, Loov and Harrington to get some time?

Harrington is going to have about as much time as Hunwick will, he's out for the year, has been for a little while now.

 

[gamer1035]

I'm afraid of these young guys coming in and ruining the draft picks our older guys worked so hard on. Aren't there some scrub career ahlers we could bring up?

I want last place secured, don't want a late season run to finish anywhere above last. Prospects can develop on the marlies on route to a championship there.

 

[Battle Lin]

hunwick has been very good for us this year, hes a small guy but moves great and has pretty solid D with solid physicality...but grinding with the big boys all year on the 1st sometimes 2nd D pairings has worn him out

hes a very good 2nd or 3rd pairing defender, i would even extend this player...hes 30 and has good years left

 

[The Thin White Duke]

It's hard not to root for Hunwick, but he's clearly Babcock's version of Cleary except on defense. Great guy, but ideally his pairing should have only one instruction: "Don't do anything stupid out there".

 

[BayStreetBully]

I'm afraid of these young guys coming in and ruining the draft picks our older guys worked so hard on. Aren't there some scrub career ahlers we could bring up?

I want last place secured, don't want a late season run to finish anywhere above last. Prospects can develop on the marlies on route to a championship there.

The young guys are going to make mistakes. They have a learning curve to go through. We are still going to lose with them in the lineup. Just look at our defensive lineup.

 

[Stephen]

Harrington is going to have about as much time as Hunwick will, he's out for the year, has been for a little while now.

What happened to him?

 

[mallory67]

This just in:

Lupul devastated to be just one of 12 injured Leafs.
He is quoted as saying "I just don't feel special anymore".

Lupul expects to be in game shape by Sunday April 10, 2016.

 

[BayStreetBully]

This just in:

Lupul devastated to be just one of 12 injured Leafs.
He is quoted as saying "I just don't feel special anymore".

Lupul expects to be in game shape by Sunday April 10, 2016.

He's still the pretty boy of the group, so there's that.

 

[hotpaws]

At this rate were going to run out of players for the Marlies .

Mgmt isn't going to **** up the tank with a late season run and it's great they've taken this route and aren't going to pull a Burke who brought in Gerber for god knows what reason .

 

[Nithoniniel]

Alright, so I'm going to break this argument wide open with a couple of numbers...QOC and Zone Starts.

QOC (quality of competition based on opponent's CORSI)

Hunwick: 1.835
Rielly: 1.513
Dion: 0.445
Jake: 0.145
Polak: -0.961
Marincin: -1.035
Corrado: -1.079

Offensive Zone starts:

Corrado: 68.8%
Marincin: 55.7%
Jake: 53.3%
Dion: 53.1%
Polak: 48.1%
Morgan: 45.8%
Hunwick: 43.1%


There we go. So not only do Hunwick and Morgan (but especially Hunwick) play against statistically the best opponents, they're also the ones on the ice on defensive faceoffs. Meanwhile, Marincin (and Corrado) appear to be playing against by far the weakest opposition lines AND the majority of their starts are in the offensive zone.

I hope that's enough to explain why Marincin's shot supression numbers are unreliable. Most of his shifts start in the opponent's zone against their 3rd and 4th lines.

These stats also show how much weight Hunwick has carried for this team this year...perhaps that's how he got that hernia.

edit: including link for data source: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...13+14+15+16+63+67+57+58+59+60+61+62+64+65+66#

Also, perhaps I should have used Rel Corsi rather than Corsi for comparison, but it wouldn't have changed the conclusion other than to make the discrepancy between Marincin and our 1st pairing even larger than straight Corsi.

The difference between Hunwick and Marincin is about 2.8 corsi events per 60 minutes. That's not a whole lot.

Furthermore, you do the same mistake many others do. You identify that Hunwick plays tougher minutes than Marincin and draw conclusions without measuring the effect of the difference between them. You see Marincin in the bottom and draw the conclusion that he plays only against third and fourth liners, when the numbers you provided only show that he played against some measurement worse competition. You can't say what this means without identifying what that measurement is.

This has been done, the effect of the difference has been negligible which is why many numbers have stopped bothering to include QoC at all.

So, zone starts then. They are heavily criticized nowadays because they look at faceoff statistics, when most changes are on the fly. Tests done to look at this and take changes on the fly into account has put some serious question marks on the usefulness of ZS%.

To put into another context. You are pretty much saying that a 10 point forward is better than a 60 point forward based on zone starts and QoC. Would it make a bit difference? Sure, it might be 20 against 50 with things normalized, but it won't make the numbers switch place.

 

[Mugzy97]

But we can actually see with numbers that Marincin is actually very good at suppressing shots.

My opinion is backed up with facts.

Fact = He statistically good at suppressing shots.
You're opinion = This fact makes him not bad.

Marincin has troublesome decision making and isn't very good at handling the puck, but he can deliver accurate and crisp passes and has the best stick work on the team, as well as good cap control. His reach allows him to contain opponents, something he actually uses rather well.

So you are basically saying that you only care about statistics when it confirms what you already believe?

I see. Analytics are useful, but only when they confirm the viewpoints you already had. Sadly, I see this intepretation all too commonly.

Yes, current analytics have many flaws. But if you can't address those flaws and objectively argue when they should and shouldn't apply, you can't choose to use them when they support you and call a waste of time when they don't.

Analytics and stats don't lie, I get it. But I also get the game of hockey and watch a lot of it, and I'm fairly certain I can point out a bad hockey player when I see one, and analytics won't change my opinion on certain players. Marincin is one of them. He is bad. An accurate and crisp pass is great when it's on your own players stick, not on the opponents stick giving them a breakaway.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Analytics and stats don't lie, I get it. But I also get the game of hockey and watch a lot of it, and I'm fairly certain I can point out a bad hockey player when I see one, and analytics won't change my opinion on certain players. Marincin is one of them. He is bad. An accurate and crisp pass is great when it's on your own players stick, not on the opponents stick giving them a breakaway.

Everyone thinks they 'get the game of hockey', and think their eye test is accurate. The limitations of the eye test is the limitations of human cognition, it's not a very good idea to think yourself an exception to this.

I don't know how many times I've thought one thing based on viewing games alone, then had statistical analysis say another. Going back with this in mind has often allowed me to notice things that I didn't previously, things that hint that the truth is probably at least somewhere at the half-point.

 

[Jeypic]

Everyone thinks they 'get the game of hockey', and think their eye test is accurate. The limitations of the eye test is the limitations of human cognition, it's not a very good idea to think yourself an exception to this.

I don't know how many times I've thought one thing based on viewing games alone, then had statistical analysis say another. Going back with this in mind has often allowed me to notice things that I didn't previously, things that hint that the truth is probably at least somewhere at the half-point.

I think people go with what they know. I find analytics interesting but I don't necessarily trust them at this point. Every time somebody posts some eye opening stats, some other guy comes in with more analytics that disprove that theory. As seen a few posts up.

There is so much garbage in analytics right now that unless you're an expert, you can easily paint yourself a phony picture that would be less valuable then the eye test.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I think people go with what they know. I find analytics interesting but I don't necessarily trust them at this point. Every time somebody posts some eye opening stats, some other guy comes in with more analytics that disprove that theory. As seen a few posts up.

There is so much garbage in analytics right now that unless you're an expert, you can easily paint yourself a phony picture that would be less valuable then the eye test.

Yeah I don't blame you for that. I guess my main point is that it always pays to keep an open mind, and allow things to challenge your point of view.

 

[Kurtz]

Analytics and stats don't lie, I get it.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

When it comes to hockey, analytics and stats lie all the time.

 

[Kurtz]

The difference between Hunwick and Marincin is about 2.8 corsi events per 60 minutes. That's not a whole lot.

I disagree; from what I've seen a spread of 2.8 is very significant. For instance, the spread between Chicago's 1st and 3rd D pairings is around 1. Washington's is around 1.75.

If I used Rel QoC instead of QoC the spread would have been even bigger.

Furthermore, you do the same mistake many others do. You identify that Hunwick plays tougher minutes than Marincin and draw conclusions without measuring the effect of the difference between them. You see Marincin in the bottom and draw the conclusion that he plays only against third and fourth liners, when the numbers you provided only show that he played against some measurement worse competition. You can't say what this means without identifying what that measurement is.

I simplified the conclusion,yes. But my conclusion was based on QoC numbers. Marincin plays against far easier opponents, which is much more likely to be 3rd and 4th lines.

This has been done, the effect of the difference has been negligible which is why many numbers have stopped bothering to include QoC at all.

Fine, but if we reject the eye test that shows us that Marincin doesn't play against top lines, and we reject the one stat that shows us the quality of the opponent that Marincin is facing, then what exactly would you like to use? If Logic, eye sight and stats are inadmissible, then what's left to us?

So, zone starts then. They are heavily criticized nowadays because they look at faceoff statistics, when most changes are on the fly. Tests done to look at this and take changes on the fly into account has put some serious question marks on the usefulness of ZS%.

Zone starts are a fantastic statistic and as good of a stat as you're likely going to get. Statistics are usually based on sampling; so not every event has to be measured to derive accurate results (within a margin of error).

To put into another context. You are pretty much saying that a 10 point forward is better than a 60 point forward based on zone starts and QoC. Would it make a bit difference? Sure, it might be 20 against 50 with things normalized, but it won't make the numbers switch place.

No...what I'm saying is that stats may show that the 10 point guy carries the defensive assignments whereas the 60 point guy does not. It doesn't suggest that one is better than the other, it simply elaborates on their roles. So the stats I've discussed don't tell us that Mo and Hunwick are better than Marincin or Corrado, but they do show us that the former get the majority of the toughest defensive assignments...thus allowing us to rationalize that shot suppression argument brought forth earlier.

In all, while shot suppression is a great team stat, it's a borderline useless individual player stat, not all that different from +/-.

 

[The Examiner]

I guess they would have to use their last call up on a defence. Unless they can just use an emergency call up for the rest of the season. If they can, then I really hope Campbell gets a chance to play. He deserves it and this would allow him to bypass waivers.

 

[Mugzy97]

Everyone thinks they 'get the game of hockey', and think their eye test is accurate. The limitations of the eye test is the limitations of human cognition, it's not a very good idea to think yourself an exception to this.

I don't know how many times I've thought one thing based on viewing games alone, then had statistical analysis say another. Going back with this in mind has often allowed me to notice things that I didn't previously, things that hint that the truth is probably at least somewhere at the half-point.

I don't know if you are arguing with me or what's going on, but IMO Marincin is not an NHL defenseman. I guess we'll see how he does on the top pairing next game.

 

[The Examiner]

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

When it comes to hockey, analytics and stats lie all the time.

Statistics lie all the time, period. This isn't just a hockey thing. They are a very useful tool but are not the be all, end all.

Statistically speaking, when Marincin is the defensive zone:

I throw up 4% of the time.

I am nauseous 92% of the time.

I have mild discomfort in my stomach 3.99% of the time.

I have minimal stomach issues, 0.01% of the time.

When I consider these statistics (stomach test) in conjunction with the eye test, heart test, brain test, and analytics, it leads me to believe that Marincin is awful and should just go away.

 

[Kurtz]

Statistics lie all the time, period. This isn't just a hockey thing. They are a very useful tool but are not the be all, end all.

Statistically speaking, when Marincin is the defensive zone:

I throw up 4% of the time.

I am nauseous 92% of the time.

I have mild discomfort in my stomach 3.99% of the time.

I have minimal stomach issues, 0.01% of the time.

When I consider these statistics (stomach test) in conjunction with the eye test, heart test, brain test, and analytics, it leads me to believe that Marincin is awful and should just go away.

 

[New Leaf]

It's not a difficult concept with regards to Marincin. He's overall a pretty decent player, even with the eye test, as he breaks up a number of high danger plays so that the goalie doesn't have to. Looking at his plays in a purely unbiased fashion will show this.

And... he makes some pretty dumb plays. Like some real, real dumb plays. It's not difficult at all to see why some have soured on him. But Rielly makes about as many real, real dumb plays and is forgiven.

Things would go a lot more smoothly if people could realize that good players can make some real bad plays.

 

[The Examiner]

hunwick has been very good for us this year, hes a small guy but moves great and has pretty solid D with solid physicality...but grinding with the big boys all year on the 1st sometimes 2nd D pairings has worn him out

hes a very good 2nd or 3rd pairing defender, i would even extend this player...hes 30 and has good years left

Hunwick started off the season pretty strong and he works really hard but he has been awful in the latter part of the year. It could be due to injury but I wouldn't extend him at all.