Player Discussion Max McCormick

[SensEnforcer]

I think this kid has been pretty good, has shown great grit and had a few chances in front of net. Its only a matter of time before he scores his first goal imo.
I can see him playing a marchand type role, minus the offensive numbers.

Do you guys think he will stick with the team when our regulars come back?

Click to read more...

 

[robsenz]

He probably won't, but its refreshing to see a player giving it his all every shift, hopefully that doesn't wear off if he does ever become a regular

 

[Beville]

Love his play, he reminds me of a bulldog...

Maybe that's more to his scrapping, I don't know haha.

 

[umma gumma]

After a handful of games I feel he's more useful in the line up than Neil or Chiasson.

 

[God Says No]

After a handful of games I feel he's more useful in the line up than Neil or Chiasson.

Agreed. He seems to come out with the puck after every board battle. Don't know how he does that.

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

After a handful of games I feel he's more useful in the line up than Neil or Chiasson.

I would agree, but once everyone gets healthy and we have a full roster I'd expect him to be moved back down due to his contract status. It's nice to know we have him in our back pocket for a Neil replacement next year/down the road. Very useful 4th line guy.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I would agree, but once everyone gets healthy and we have a full roster I'd expect him to be moved back down due to his contract status. It's nice to know we have him in our back pocket for a Neil replacement next year/down the road. Very useful 4th line guy.

Gotta love those scraped knuckles.

Agree with the comments on him being more effective than Neil and Chiasson at least on the forcheck. He seems responsible as well.

I like Neil he's a warrior and have trouble liking Chiasson cuz well he well he sucks

 

[Proust*]

He probably won't, but its refreshing to see a player giving it his all every shift, hopefully that doesn't wear off if he does ever become a regular

It always does....

 

[Holdurbreathe]

Agreed. He seems to come out with the puck after every board battle. Don't know how he does that.

Simple formula, hard work, which too many Sens on too many nights don't do.

 

[Boud]

It only has been 7 games so far, obviously we'd need a much bigger sample size to evaluate McCormick but here's some interesting stats:

His zone starts are: 33.3% OZ/ 24.1% DZ / 41.6% NZ

On average our Goals for % when he's on the ice is 66.7% (highest on the team)
Which basically means that when McCormick is on the ice we score 66% of the goals. The top 5 is completed by Prince, Hoffman, Michalek and Cowen

On average our shots for % is 52.5% when he's on the ice, again the highest on the team. The top 5 is completed by Prince, Smith, Stone and Turris. The first 4(McCormick,Prince,Smith and Stone) are the only guys on the team who have 50% or higher shots for % when their on the ice.

Lazar is last on the team for shots for %, and goals for % when he's on the ice for forwards. Which means we get badly outscored (by 72,3 %!!!) and badly outshot (by 58.5%) when Lazar is on the ice.

Only 3 of players have a positive Fenwick and they are Prince, Stone and Smith. McCormick sits at 47.2% but his Fenwick for REL % is positive which is the important.

About half our our players have a positive FF% REL and they are in order:

Karlsson
Prince
Stone
Turris
Smith
Neil
Wiercioch
Hoffman
McCormick
Wideman
Chiasson

Which means that their impact on the team is positive generally speaking when they're on the ice. All these guys have a positive % of (total shots - blocked shots)

 

[aragorn]

It only has been 7 games so far, obviously we'd need a much bigger sample size to evaluate McCormick but here's some interesting stats:

His zone starts are: 33.3% OZ/ 24.1% DZ / 41.6% NZ

On average our Goals for % when he's on the ice is 66.7% (highest on the team)
Which basically means that when McCormick is on the ice we score 66% of the goals. The top 5 is completed by Prince, Hoffman, Michalek and Cowen

On average our shots for % is 52.5% when he's on the ice, again the highest on the team. The top 5 is completed by Prince, Smith, Stone and Turris. The first 4(McCormick,Prince,Smith and Stone) are the only guys on the team who have 50% or higher shots for % when their on the ice.

Lazar is last on the team for shots for %, and goals for % when he's on the ice for forwards. Which means we get badly outscored (by 72,3 %!!!) and badly outshot (by 58.5%) when Lazar is on the ice.

Only 3 of players have a positive Fenwick and they are Prince, Stone and Smith. McCormick sits at 47.2% but his Fenwick/60 REL is positive which is the important.

About half our our players have a positive FF/60 REL and they are in order:

Prince
Stone
Karlsson
Smith
Turris
Wiercioch
McCormick
Wideman
Neil
Zibanejad

Which means that their impact on the team is positive generally speaking when their on the ice. All these guys have a positive % of (total shots - blocked shots)

Which given this logic means that Pageau & Chiasson are negative influences & get scored on a lot when they are on the ice. But since they both play the PK a lot it isn't surprising given that we take a lot of penalties & give up the most shots on net. I think most will be surprised to see Smith so high on this list too. I'm surprised Karlsson is so high on the list but given the amount of ice time he gets it shouldn't be. I would have expected that he would be on the ice for as many goals against as he is for goals for.

McCormick is another guy who has a lot of energy & a motor that doesn't stop or slow down & he only seems to know how to play one way at full speed which is a good thing. The down side is that he isn't as skilled & would have a few goals now if he was. What I like about him aside from his grit is that he is more versatile than I previously knew, he can play all three forward positions which surprised me, I didn't know he could play centre. I highly doubt he can replace Neil though in the enforcer department, I would consider him more of a middle weight. Boro seems to want Neil's job but even he isn't as tough as Neil who IMO is one of the top enforcers in the league. I was hoping Cowen would be much tougher in that area but he doesn't seem interested in any way to drop his gloves with any regularity unless he is forced into it. Doesn't much matter, the NHL seems to want to eliminate fighting from the game especially given the concussion law suits & the image of doing everything they can to protect their employees, the players.

 

[Boud]

Which given this logic means that Pageau & Chiasson are negative influences & get scored on a lot when they are on the ice. But since they both play the PK a lot it isn't surprising given that we take a lot of penalties & give up the most shots on net. I think most will be surprised to see Smith so high on this list too. I'm surprised Karlsson is so high on the list but given the amount of ice time he gets it shouldn't be. I would have expected that he would be on the ice for as many goals against as he is for goals for.

All these stats are 5 on 5 so PK or PP has no impact. I changed my post a bit for FF% REL since it's more representative of the total impact of a player (positive impact - negative impact).

So the list changed a bit but is basically made of the same players as you can see in my edited post.

For Karlsson, at 5 on 5, he has 52% goals for % which means we score 52% of the goals when he's on the ice. If you take all situations (PP,PK,5 ON 5, 4 on 4 and etc) his goals for % is 58% which is 5th on the team behind McCormick (small sample), Hoffman, Ryan and Prince.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Which given this logic means that Pageau & Chiasson are negative influences & get scored on a lot when they are on the ice. But since they both play the PK a lot it isn't surprising given that we take a lot of penalties & give up the most shots on net. I think most will be surprised to see Smith so high on this list too. I'm surprised Karlsson is so high on the list but given the amount of ice time he gets it shouldn't be. I would have expected that he would be on the ice for as many goals against as he is for goals for.

McCormick is another guy who has a lot of energy & a motor that doesn't stop or slow down & he only seems to know how to play one way at full speed which is a good thing. The down side is that he isn't as skilled & would have a few goals now if he was. What I like about him aside from his grit is that he is more versatile than I previously knew, he can play all three forward positions which surprised me, I didn't know he could play centre. I highly doubt he can replace Neil though in the enforcer department, I would consider him more of a middle weight. Boro seems to want Neil's job but even he isn't as tough as Neil who IMO is one of the top enforcers in the league. I was hoping Cowen would be much tougher in that area but he doesn't seem interested in any way to drop his gloves with any regularity unless he is forced into it. Doesn't much matter, the NHL seems to want to eliminate fighting from the game especially given the concussion law suits & the image of doing everything they can to protect their employees, the players.

I don't think you understand what the original post is saying. Those numbers are generally percentages of goals scored by both teams at 5-on-5. A percentage won't change with how much you play (typically).

As for Pageau and Chiasson getting scored on a lot? You've made the wrong conclusion there. Pageau is on the ice for the second LEAST goals against per 60 minutes of 5-on-5 play among forwards (among those who have played 20 games or more); Chiasson 4th least. These two players also get BY FAR the least amount of offensive zone starts. They are sent out almost always in the defensive zone. Pageau is 2nd among forwards (behind only Michalek) in terms of quality of competition they face; Chiasson 3rd. It's pretty clear that the coaching staff sees that duo as the best defensive unit on the team.

Despite this Pageau still somehow manages to be on the plus side in +/-. Chiasson hasn't been quite as good, but is still serviceable as a defensive forward.

The numbers say that Pageau has been our best defensive forward and it's not really even close.

While researching this I saw an interesting stat. Worst GA/60 min on the team? Mark Stone. I wouldn't have thought that.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

As for McCormick I think he'll be a really useful 4th liner who might top out as a 3rd liner.

He seems to know his way around his own end and plays a pretty fearless game. Skates well too which is a must almost throughout the lineup in today's NHL.

If we're not in a playoff position come the dealine I'd like to see Neil moved. Give Chris a shot with a contender and make some room on the 4th line for a guy like McCormick.

 

[topshelf15]

After a handful of games I feel he's more useful in the line up than Neil or Chiasson.

Need to replace at least one of these guys,both if we could .We are pretty thin on the right side ,after Ryan and Stone though

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

...

About half our our players have a positive FF% REL and they are in order:

Karlsson
...
Chiasson

Which means that their impact on the team is positive generally speaking when they're on the ice. All these guys have a positive % of (total shots - blocked shots)

Honestly, when you see Alex Chiasson on this list, isn't your first instinct to question the accuracy or usefulness of this statistic?

 

[GWNR]

I'd like to see him on a line in Condra's role with Pageau and Lazar.

That'd be a gritty, speedy line that could impact momentum

 

[Boud]

Honestly, when you see Alex Chiasson on this list, isn't your first instinct to question the accuracy or usefulness of this statistic?

To be honest, Chiasson is just a minimal positive(which is why he's last on the list), be he still has a positive FF% Rel (which is shot attemps - shots blocked). These stats are useful because you can't keep track of these things with the ''eye test'' and often a lot of things come into play when you think about this same ''eye test''. Sometimes players looks less effective or more effective based on someone's preference of a player. Some player look like they are more effective than others because they are faster, or stronger or win more board battles but it isn't necessarily the case when you dig deeper.

They aren't everything (Fenwick/Corsi/Hextally etc etc etc), and they need to be taken into context, but they are something and they do tell us something whether we believe the contrary or not. Most definitely no statistic is ultimately optimal, definitely(!) no eye test is optimal, but both are worth something which is why those advanced stats are gaining importance in the first place.

 

[Boud]

While researching this I saw an interesting stat. Worst GA/60 min on the team? Mark Stone. I wouldn't have thought that.

Not sure where you got your stats but at 5 on 5 the worst GA/60 are:

DZIURZYNSKI, DAVE 3.94
LAZAR, CURTIS 2.76
KARLSSON, ERIK 2.66
RYAN, BOBBY 2.59
STONE, MARK 2.58

The important stat is GF % though since it takes into account GF/60 VS GA/60 and on the team the worst are:

DZIURZYNSKI, DAVE
LAZAR, CURTIS
BOROWIECKI, MARK
CHIASSON, ALEX
WIERCIOCH, PATRICK


So we get scored on more than we score with these guys on the ice. When Drizzy and Lazar are on the ice we get scored on 75 % more than the other team which means that if 4 goals are scored between the 2 teams, the other team would score 3, that's pathetic considering Lazar has played a good amount of games on the top 6 to start the season also.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Not sure where you got your stats but at 5 on 5 the worst GA/60 are:

DZIURZYNSKI, DAVE 3.94
LAZAR, CURTIS 2.76
KARLSSON, ERIK 2.66
RYAN, BOBBY 2.59
STONE, MARK 2.58

The important stat is GF % REL though since it takes into account GF/60 VS GA/60 and on the team the worst are:

LAZAR, CURTIS
DZIURZYNSKI, DAVE
BOROWIECKI, MARK
WIERCIOCH, PATRICK
CHIASSON, ALEX

So we get scored on more than we score with these guys on the ice.

I used behind the net for these stats.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=25&s=24&f1=2015_s&f2=5v5&f5=OTT&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28#

Dziurzinski is the worst by "my" stats too, if I included him. As I only included those who had played at least 20 games he wasn't listed.

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

Who would you guys rather have? Steve Downie or McCormick. Imagine Downie never hurt McCammond

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

.... These stats are useful because you can't keep track of these things with the ''eye test'' and often a lot of things come into play when you think about this same ''eye test''. Sometimes players looks less effective or more effective based on someone's preference of a player. Some player look like they are more effective than others because they are faster, or stronger or win more board battles but it isn't necessarily the case when you dig deeper.

I fundamentally agree that a "good" statistic is valuable because our eye test is, almost by definition, flawed.

They aren't everything (Fenwick/Corsi/Hextally etc etc etc), and they need to be taken into context, but they are something and they do tell us something whether we believe the contrary or not. ...

The bolded part is what I disagree with, or at least disagree with for every advanced stat. To me each individual advanced stat has to be "proven" as something that actually accurately measures the quality of a player.

This is where the analytics community in baseball succeeded back about 20 years ago... they proved that team OPS (Oba plus Slugging %) correlated strongly with runs scored and that the legacy stats like BA, runs scored, RBIs did not. They were also able to go further and fairly accurately predict a teams offensive output based on the OPS of the roster.

To my knowledge (please correct me if wrong), no one in the hockey analytics community has "proven" any of the advanced stats in this manor.

So when I see a stat that claims a very bad player like Chiasson is actually good, my first instinct is to question the stat (or the data that feeds it).

 

[Boud]

I used behind the net for these stats.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=25&s=24&f1=2015_s&f2=5v5&f5=OTT&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28#

Dziurzinski is the worst by "my" stats too, if I included him. As I only included those who had played at least 20 games he wasn't listed.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...=50&teamid=21&type=goals&sort=PCT&sortdir=ASC

That's weird, It's close though.

 

[God Says No]

The important stat is GF % though since it takes into account GF/60 VS GA/60 and on the team the worst are:

DZIURZYNSKI, DAVE Sent down
LAZAR, CURTIS Sent down
BOROWIECKI, MARK Sat down
CHIASSON, ALEX Traded/Released/Not re-signed
WIERCIOCH, PATRICK Replaced by a top 4 LHD through trade

Funny, all the players that I want replaced by different means.

 

[Boud]

I fundamentally agree that a "good" statistic is valuable because our eye test is, almost by definition, flawed.



The bolded part is what I disagree with, or at least disagree with for every advanced stat. To me each individual advanced stat has to be "proven" as something that actually accurately measures the quality of a player.

This is where the analytics community in baseball succeeded back about 20 years ago... they proved that team OPS (Oba plus Slugging %) correlated strongly with runs scored and that the legacy stats like BA, runs scored, RBIs did not. They were also able to go further and fairly accurately predict a teams offensive output based on the OPS of the roster.

To my knowledge (please correct me if wrong), no one in the hockey analytics community has "proven" any of the advanced stats in this manor.

So when I see a stat that claims a very bad player like Chiasson is actually good, my first instinct is to question the stat (or the data that feeds it).

Well, I don't think I can answer that question unfortunately, I'd be prompted to say that it hasn't been proven to that extent but looking at different stat will definitely help you find some good information.

If you look at Corsi, you'll find that, per example, Wiercioch has always been fairly good in that regard and that is because Wiercioch is good at making a first pass, most importantly exiting he zone which rushes the attack. By rushing the attack, we have the opportunity to have more shots generated than the opposing team since we don't get hammered in the Dzone.

Now, is Wiercioch a quality player outside of that? That is a totally different question. Like I said, these stats tell us something but they have to be taken into context, I wouldn't take Wiercioch over Methot because he has a better corsi per example. A lot of things need to be taken into consideration to have a real legitimate evaluation like quality of opposition, quality of teammates, shots generated vs generated against, scoring chances generated vs against, goals scored vs scored against, 5 on 5 impact and etc. There's not 1 stat that will tell you the whole story, I don't believe there will ever be one that will do that but it's something that isn't ingored anymore by most pro sports team for a good reason IMO.

These stats don't necessarely claim that Chiasson is good, they say 1 thing about his game while there is a lot more to look at but again, it does tell something.