Parise for Pouliot, Jacques

[hfboardsuser]

Can you point out to me how you exactly you figure all 10 players on the ice for an even strength goal.........

How many times does it have to be explained? He gets it from scoresheet data.


Example scoresheet


Now, as he said, other individuals collect the data for him and stick it into a spreadsheet or some such thing, but the scoresheet above is where that's gleaned.

 

[Lou is God]

I also am uncertain where the OPP and TEAMMATE numbers come from. How do you determinee these numbers? And why is it that Cole is the only player (aside from the mystery #23) that has a negative number in the OPP column?

Exactly what I'm wondering, how do you get those and better determine their worth because Nittel's numbers seem high good despite a bad 5 on 5 rating but seems to have benifited from the opponent category.

Also it seems to show that true defensive oriented players seem able to break even with a bad defensive team where the offensive minded players take a beating probably because their role is to score and can be caught on the ice with bad defenseman and pay the price statistically. Defensive minded players (etc. 3rd line) are focused on defense first and are not expected to contribute so much on offense so they can primarely focus on stopping the opponent from scoring which IMO job is easier to do than what the offensive players are asked to do; score goals. And the reason why in igor's numbers (which are impressive) the defensive forwards seem to be better and the offensive players (which are most very young) don't seem to have the better numbers.

But you guys have been claiming that these numbers backup your claim that this proves that Parise is a liability on defense but it doesn't, even igor's numbers support it when he wrote this:

Voros, Parise and Suglobov combined for EV+4 EV-5 as a line ... hardly a big chunk of their icetime.

In fairness to Voros and Suglobov ... they did much better playing together with MacAmmond in Parise's place. EV+8 EV-6.

There is a difference when MacAmmond repaces Parice on his line, but that's to be expected for MacAmmond is a proven NHL player and will have a big edge on him just from experience alone.

 

[igor*]

Igor,

Can you point out to me how you exactly you figure all 10 players on the ice for an even strength goal.........


Can you tell me how you are keeping this data? Is it in a relational Database? I'm curious to know how you are quering who plays with whom at what time.

But the real question I have is why do you believe this data is any indication of anything?

For an example.... If Jamie Langenbrunner played 5 games with the Madden line and 5 games with Friensen and Nieuwendyk I would totally expect his EV+ and EV- to be different. Those are two completely different roles. One is expected to produce points and the other is expected to stop them......Would that mean MAdden and Pandolfo are keeping Langenbrunner a float??? Of course not.

I question the analysis of your data, and I am unclear of the collection method so I am uncertain of its [Data] integrity as well.

Just scraped from the NHL.com gamesheets, as follows for example, two defencemen.

Team	Player	EV it	5on5 +	5on5 -	opp it	opp +	opp -	tm it	tm +	tm -
17	4	707	23	24	220022	8235	7826	214373	7613	6084
17	6	601	16	12	120117	4295	4501	115335	4090	2993

"it" stands for icetime. If #4 is on the ice for a 5on5 goal against ... then the total EV+ numbers of all the opponents on the ice are added to the "opp+" column, and their total even strength icetimes for the year to the "opp it" column. etc for "opp-" ... and all the same for the teammates that were on the ice too.

At first glance player #6 might look like a better even strength defencemen. EV+16 and EV-12 ... and #4 is in the red in terms of EV+/-.

But in context ... #4 has, on the whole, been playing against outscorers and with decent teammates. On the whole #6 has been playing against the outscored ... the depth players of the other team, and with some pretty darn good teammates on the whole.

The coach doesn't trust #6. This much should be obvious.

Or, looking at it another way. VS division rivals with a clear offensive threat (I just picked NYI and PHI arbitrarily here) ...
* Yashin spent 45% of his 5on5 icetime out against #4. Roenick 36%.
* Yashin spent 13% of his 5on5 icetime out against #6. Roenick 4%.

[granted neither of these N.J players played many minutes last year, and this is just scraped from the shiftcharts, so it's not spot on ... still the trend should be pretty clear, no?]

Mostly a picked these two guys as an example because they faced a huge difference in "average icetime of opponent" ... relatively speaking. It's about 936 for Stevens and 858 for Albelin, which stands to reason because better players tend to get more icetime.

Without this number (which I do NOT have for the AHL) the player facing weaker opposition is going to get flattered a bit.

Simple as that. They WILL pull even further apart, because as Dawgbone alluded to above, few teams employ checking lines any more ... its usually best 5on5 players vs best 5on5 players ... so they hurt each others numbers. But this is getting pretty heavy already, and unless you're planning on making book I can't imagine why anyone would want to know anyways.

 

[Kestrel]

Just thought I'd throw in my two bits about what I'm observing in this "debate." I'm admittedly an Oilers fan - but I don't really have any first hand knowledge about any of these three players, and am more than willing to admit it, so I think I am capable of being a relatively unbiased observer.

The stats based arguments - I don't see any of the more involved posters REALLY stating they have the final judgement on Parise just because they've done some stats analysis, rather I see people saying they have compelling reasons to be open minded and re-evaluate Parise's current ability.

On the other side of the argument, I see stats-be-damned "I'm gonna think whatever the hell I want to think anyway, so I'll just ignore any points you have whether they be valid or not" posters.

I personally still haven't made any final judgements on any of these 3 players, and won't until I've seen them play in the NHL for at least a few seasons. It seems a few other posters HAVE made those final judgements though, and are completely unwilling to hear and weigh opinions to the contrary by anyone else.

Also, the "it's not the role he was playing" argument is kinda old. With very few exceptions (like goons for instance), a player's role is nearly always to make sure his team scores more than they're scored against while he's on the ice. Doesn't matter if he has a defensive role or an offensive role, the goal and the ultimate role are the same.

Sorry, but I've got to say that the statistical argument is far more compelling than the "you're obviously not watching, and considering the intangibles" argument. Intangibles are great - but only if they result in the tangibles too.

The guy may be a bust, he may be the greatest player since Gretzky, or he may fall somewhere in between - I'm not commenting on him and his ability, because I'm not qualified to do so - but I DO know a good argument and a bad one when I see it - and I've just seen examples of both.

 

[t0mf00lery]

Pouliot is NOT known for his defensive skills. Who ever told you that needs to give his head a shake. He isnt a defensive liability but I wouldnt consider him sound his own end.

I wouldn't say he is a great defensive player either, I mean there is a reason he doesn't play on the PK, ever. What I will say, though, is that everytime I have watched him play, I have been impressed at how he outplays the other team's center. He sure isn't a liability out there.

 

[Classic Devil]

While this is partly true, you still don't seem to understand the concept of soft minutes. Rookies and defensively inept players are teamed with better players so that that player's mistakes aren't so glaring.

When your numbers come up saying that Ray Schultz, Pascal Rheaume, and Teemu Kesa have the team's softest minutes, you have a flaw, because that simply isn't true.

 

[Lou is God]

Just thought I'd throw in my two bits about what I'm observing in this "debate." I'm admittedly an Oilers fan - but I don't really have any first hand knowledge about any of these three players, and am more than willing to admit it, so I think I am capable of being a relatively unbiased observer.

The stats based arguments - I don't see any of the more involved posters REALLY stating they have the final judgement on Parise just because they've done some stats analysis, rather I see people saying they have compelling reasons to be open minded and re-evaluate Parise's current ability.

On the other side of the argument, I see stats-be-damned "I'm gonna think whatever the hell I want to think anyway, so I'll just ignore any points you have whether they be valid or not" posters.

I personally still haven't made any final judgements on any of these 3 players, and won't until I've seen them play in the NHL for at least a few seasons. It seems a few other posters HAVE made those final judgements though, and are completely unwilling to hear and weigh opinions to the contrary by anyone else.

Also, the "it's not the role he was playing" argument is kinda old. With very few exceptions (like goons for instance), a player's role is nearly always to make sure his team scores more than they're scored against while he's on the ice. Doesn't matter if he has a defensive role or an offensive role, the goal and the ultimate role are the same.

Sorry, but I've got to say that the statistical argument is far more compelling than the "you're obviously not watching, and considering the intangibles" argument. Intangibles are great - but only if they result in the tangibles too.

The guy may be a bust, he may be the greatest player since Gretzky, or he may fall somewhere in between - I'm not commenting on him and his ability, because I'm not qualified to do so - but I DO know a good argument and a bad one when I see it - and I've just seen examples of both.

You try to say your unbiased but yet you side with the arguement that is basing everything on one stat, one that is unproven at best and even if it is does this really truely evalutate a rookie's first pro year on a bad defensive team? It seems that alot of Oiler posters seem just as eager to hang out to this one stat to justify their teams choice on passing on Parise. I just find it hard to believe if the Oilers took Parise that they would still be arguing about his defensive liabilites, that he's overrated, not a top elite propsect, what ever it may be. I'm not suggesting we aren't be unbaised either, but our arguement falls on more reasons than one stat.


Sorry man, your true colors did show.

 

[hfboardsuser]

When your numbers come up saying that Ray Schultz, Pascal Rheaume, and Teemu Kesa have the team's softest minutes, you have a flaw, because that simply isn't true.

As my Grandma likes to say, "come off it". You're choosing not to believe the data that's right in front of your eyes. It's like CSI; the biggest rule is to not put much stock into eyewitness statements. Sure, the eyewitnesses don't like this- part of it is pride, part of it is not wanting to know that their own senses can't be trusted- but if they contradict the evidence, they're wrong (independant of collection and processing error).

If you want to continue believing this, show igor where the flaw is. You say there's one; prove it.

 

[hfboardsuser]

You try to say your unbiased but yet you side with the arguement that is basing everything on one stat, one that is unproven at best and even if it is does this really truely evalutate a rookie's first pro year on a bad defensive team? It seems that alot of Oiler posters seem just as eager to hang out to this one stat to justify their teams choice on passing on Parise.

1. Prove the stat doesn't work. I can spout all I like that the Conservation of Momentum equation is "unproven at best", but if I'm doing anything to show it's wrong, no one is going to care.

2. I for one am not trying to use this to justify passing on Parise. What I am doing is trying to disprove the notion Parise is a shutdown center or being given ice-time with guys like McAmmond because he has the defensive ability to do so, and not because he's been used in soft situations.

 

[Cerebral]

I just find it hard to believe if the Oilers took Parise that they would still be arguing about his defensive liabilites, that he's overrated, not a top elite propsect, what ever it may be. I'm not suggesting we aren't be unbaised either, but our arguement falls on more reasons than one stat.

I would actually be shocked if we weren't arguing over his defensive liabilities on the Oilers board. Nearly everyone was ecstatic about the Robbie Schremp pick but there is still nearly a thread/day trying to break down his game and a number of individuals are still convinced that he won't become a solid NHL player. I see no problem with analyzing Parise's game and us Edmonton fans would be doing it if we drafted him as well...

 

[Kestrel]

You try to say your unbiased but yet you side with the arguement that is basing everything on one stat, one that is unproven at best and even if it is does this really truely evalutate a rookie's first pro year on a bad defensive team? It seems that alot of Oiler posters seem just as eager to hang out to this one stat to justify their teams choice on passing on Parise. I just find it hard to believe if the Oilers took Parise that they would still be arguing about his defensive liabilites, that he's overrated, not a top elite propsect, what ever it may be. I'm not suggesting we aren't be unbaised either, but our arguement falls on more reasons than one stat.


Sorry man, your true colors did show.

My true colours show? Sorry man, yeah, I'll admit I have an Oilers bias - but I never made an opinion on the players, so it's pretty hard to find a bias there. I also never said who was right or wrong - pretty hard to find a bias there too. I said who made the more compelling argument - and maybe I didn't make it clear - but pretty much said either argument could be wrong - just that one was definitely more compelling than the other.

I'm sorry, but the team colours didn't show on that one.

And if you really think the Oilers fans instantly rally around their prospects... try asking a few of them about Jason Bonsignore or Dan Cleary... or for current prospects - Jesse Ninnimakii, Jani Rita, or Alexei Mikhnov. I'm still hopefull for the last 3, but I'll in no way say they're currently top prospects - and you'll hear a lot of negatives from Oilers fans about them... I know I have been for quite awhile.

So yeah, I'm biased - but not nearly so much so when it comes to weighing the strength of an argument as opposed to weighing players.

Now, so you know my opinion so you can really judge for yourself how my bias colours things - I think both teams made the right trade - Edmonton needs serviceable size, New Jersey would definitely love a skilled player. I think Jacques COULD be a great player... I think Pouliot WILL be an NHLer and COULD be every bit as good as Parise - but I think Parise is likely to turn out to be the best player in the equation. Sound like someone who's building up his own prospects, and using his bias to tear down someone else's prospect? I personally don't think so.

 

[Lou is God]

1. Prove the stat doesn't work. I can spout all I like that the Conservation of Momentum equation is "unproven at best", but if I'm doing anything to show it's wrong, no one is going to care.

Doesn't work that way dude, you guys are the one that introduce it, so you need to show first that it is accurate, not the other way around. BTW, I like igor's stats and numbers (still trying to figure where finds the time to do this ), I just don't think it makes a case of Parise being a defensive liabilty as alot of folks are suggesting.

2. I for one am not trying to use this to justify passing on Parise. What I am doing is trying to disprove the notion Parise is a shutdown center or being given ice-time with guys like McAmmond because he has the defensive ability to do so, and not because he's been used in soft situations.

And I for one have never claimed him to be a shut down center (which could be the case down the road, still early), really don't think anybody has from our side, but did it ever occur that if he used in soft situations it's probably an attempt of the coach to take advantage of his offensive skills and not so much an attempt to hide any flaws in Parise defensive game, if there is any? I mean does any coach look to put his best offensive players head to head to the opponents best defensive players, hell no. They are always going to try to put them against a line that have the best chance of producing.

 

[Lou is God]

I would actually be shocked if we weren't arguing over his defensive liabilities on the Oilers board. Nearly everyone was ecstatic about the Robbie Schremp pick but there is still nearly a thread/day trying to break down his game and a number of individuals are still convinced that he won't become a solid NHL player. I see no problem with analyzing Parise's game and us Edmonton fans would be doing it if we drafted him as well...

But if I'm wrong hasn't Schremp been a frustrating prospect for you guys, not fullfilling his promise as everyone as hoped he would? I mean if he was a Devils prospect we would probably do the same thing, but when has Parise EVER given us a reason to chop him down to size? And again man, I can't believe that based on a number by a fellow poster you guys continue to call him a defensive liability, I have seen Parise play a ton of times and have always seen a good strong defensive effort. Take your eyes off the stat sheet and watch him play, if you did I doubt you find any real defensive flaws.

 

[Lou is God]

My true colours show? Sorry man, yeah, I'll admit I have an Oilers bias - but I never made an opinion on the players, so it's pretty hard to find a bias there. I also never said who was right or wrong - pretty hard to find a bias there too. I said who made the more compelling argument - and maybe I didn't make it clear - but pretty much said either argument could be wrong - just that one was definitely more compelling than the other.

I'm sorry, but the team colours didn't show on that one.

And if you really think the Oilers fans instantly rally around their prospects... try asking a few of them about Jason Bonsignore or Dan Cleary... or for current prospects - Jesse Ninnimakii, Jani Rita, or Alexei Mikhnov. I'm still hopefull for the last 3, but I'll in no way say they're currently top prospects - and you'll hear a lot of negatives from Oilers fans about them... I know I have been for quite awhile.

So yeah, I'm biased - but not nearly so much so when it comes to weighing the strength of an argument as opposed to weighing players.

Now, so you know my opinion so you can really judge for yourself how my bias colours things - I think both teams made the right trade - Edmonton needs serviceable size, New Jersey would definitely love a skilled player. I think Jacques COULD be a great player... I think Pouliot WILL be an NHLer and COULD be every bit as good as Parise - but I think Parise is likely to turn out to be the best player in the equation. Sound like someone who's building up his own prospects, and using his bias to tear down someone else's prospect? I personally don't think so.

When you mention Bonsignore, Cleary, Ninnimakii among others you are talking about prospects that have not panned out are not panning out as you have hoped, Parise on the other hand does not fit anywhere near category......yet. Of course their a chance he could become a flop, nobody is really a sure thing, and if he does flop, we will be all over him like flys on doggie poop. But he hasn't, in fact he has passed every test thrown at him with passing colors, so maybe you can see why I am in such disbelief that Oilers poster want to chop him down a bit because of one stat based on his rookie year with a VERY BAD defensive team.

So you're really comparing apples and oranges, because we too get on our to top prospects that are not working out (Laine, Foster, Kadekin, etc...), so we are not automatic cheerleaders for everyone of our prospects, just staunch defenders of those who we are being falsely accused of having flaws that are non-exsistent.

 

[Cerebral]

But if I'm wrong hasn't Schremp been a frustrating prospect for you guys, not fullfilling his promise as everyone as hoped he would? I mean if he was a Devils prospect we would probably do the same thing, but when has Parise EVER given us a reason to chop him down to size? And again man, I can't believe that based on a number by a fellow poster you guys continue to call him a defensive liability, I have seen Parise play a ton of times and have always seen a good strong defensive effort. Take your eyes off the stat sheet and watch him play, if you did I doubt you find any real defensive flaws.

Negatory, his play this season has impressed almost every Oilers fan. He's improved his scoring output and has apparently put in a lot more effort in the defensive zone. Some are worried about his skating ability but few can really critique his season so far...

I simply meant that Parise will struggle with larger centerman (as is the case with almost every small center). He seems to have fairly strong defensive instincts and he works hard in his own end but that will only carry you so far. I've watched him play and I've been impressed by the effort he puts out on both ends of the ice but I still think he'll need to be somewhat protected in terms of matchups (a la Mike York).

 

[dawgbone]

You try to say your unbiased but yet you side with the arguement that is basing everything on one stat, one that is unproven at best and even if it is does this really truely evalutate a rookie's first pro year on a bad defensive team? It seems that alot of Oiler posters seem just as eager to hang out to this one stat to justify their teams choice on passing on Parise. I just find it hard to believe if the Oilers took Parise that they would still be arguing about his defensive liabilites, that he's overrated, not a top elite propsect, what ever it may be. I'm not suggesting we aren't be unbaised either, but our arguement falls on more reasons than one stat.


Sorry man, your true colors did show.

Unproven?

Having attended 1 of Roger Neilson's coaching clinics, I can in fact tell you it is a proven stat. Because you haven't sat down to prove it yet doesn't discount how true it is.

Obviously, in Hockey, the idea is to score more (or "outscore") the opposition... I don't think there is an argument there. I know we love the argument that "Well his teammates suck"... lots of good outscorers have played with crappy teammates... and if you are a good outscorer, you bring the level of your linemates up. It's likely yours will drop as well, but at the very least your linemates will go up.

I don't think that it's difficult to see that Parise never was able to bring the outscoring numbers of his linemates up. That is your first hint that he isn't a good outscorer. This is all buggered up if there is an injury of course. Most coaches hide injured players for their first few games back, simply because it makes sense.

And to be honest, it isn't just one stat... it is the most important stat relating to hockey. Being able to score more than your opposition while playing against them. The only thing point scoring gets you is a bigger contract. Outscoring gets you wins. And yes, you can certainly have one without the other.

And you are right, if the Oilers had Parise we wouldn't be talking about his defense. We'd be talking completely about his offense in terms of discussing how positive his year was. We certainly wouldn't try and bring up that he is some kind of checking/shutdown centre when he clearly isn't. Parise is what he is... a good offensive player, who as a 20 year old is struggling to find his niche as an outscorer. There is no one saying that he can't learn the game and become better. But the argument at this point in time is Parise is a gifted offensive player.

End of Story.

That's about where the Parise vs Pouliot/Jacques debate ends. Parise has shown what he can do at the AHL level, and we'll see what Pouliot does this upcoming season at the AHL level as a 20 year old (don't forget, Pouliot was one of the youngest players drafted, while Parise was one of the oldest players drafted, ignoring the over-agers of course), and what Jacques does as a 20 year old.

Until then, there isn't much to argue about. Parise put up very good AHL point totals, but wasn't a very good out-scorer. Pouliot and Jacques will be going into the AHL this up coming season and we can see how they do point wise and outscoring wise. Both teams should be happy with the trade they made. New Jersey's getting a player who put up very good rookie totals in the AHL, and the Oilers have 2 players who have done nothing but drastically increase their point totals since being drafted.

FYI, if anyone thinks Igor is being a homer, you should consider what he's written on the Oiler boards that goes very much against popular beleif and what people
(Oiler fans) want to hear. He's ripped apart Ales Hemsky (who is practically the favorite son of every Oiler player), and praised Horcoff (who most fans wouldn't be concerend if the Oilers dealt him away for a 5th round pick). He doesn't pick his favorites and then find stats to support it... most of the time he's just curious at things and finds out what the numbers say.

 

[oil slick]

When you mention Bonsignore, Cleary, Ninnimakii among others you are talking about prospects that have not panned out are not panning out as you have hoped, Parise on the other hand does not fit anywhere near category......yet. Of course their a chance he could become a flop, nobody is really a sure thing, and if he does flop, we will be all over him like flys on doggie poop. But he hasn't, in fact he has passed every test thrown at him with passing colors, so maybe you can see why I am in such disbelief that Oilers poster want to chop him down a bit because of one stat based on his rookie year with a VERY BAD defensive team.

So you're really comparing apples and oranges, because we too get on our to top prospects that are not working out (Laine, Foster, Kadekin, etc...), so we are not automatic cheerleaders for everyone of our prospects, just staunch defenders of those who we are being falsely accused of having flaws that are non-exsistent.

Let's keep things in perspective. Parise is no where near a flop. He has done very well for himself, I for one would love to have Parise in the Oilers stables.

However, this whole thing came about because of a comparison between Parise and Jacques/Pouliot. I think we can agree that both of those players, particularly Jacques, have also exceeding expectations, and are coming along nicely.

Now, some posters obviously feel that NJ won this trade easily "IMO it's still Parise and New Jersey easily." "Ask Edmonton and they'll say they want Parise back if given the opportunity" "Parise is much better than the two others". This is fine; Parise has a huge upside.

Then some posters, myself included, brought up a statistic that might show Parise has some stuff to work on, and is not necessarily much better than the other two. Now you make a good argument that it is his rookie year, and certainly the stat in question is not definitive, but it's an interesting stat, and I don't think Parise is "being falsely accused of having flaws that are non-exsistent." It's a statistic, but IMO worth talking about.

Having said that, there are plenty of questions about Poiliot and Jacques... does Jacques have the scoring touch to be a top six forward in the league? Will Pouliots speed be a liability? All these are valid questions, and there have been plenty of stats bandied about in favour and against our prospects. I think if you went to the Oilers board, you'd see plenty of stats pro - and against virtually all our players.

 

[Cerebral]

I mean does any coach look to put his best offensive players head to head to the opponents best defensive players, hell no. They are always going to try to put them against a line that have the best chance of producing.

Not neccessarily true. Ryan Smyth played on a line with Shawn Horcoff last season and he was constantly thrown out against the opposition's top scoring line. The key is outscoring, not producing. Ryan Smyth might be able to put up 20 more points/season if he is playing against weaker competition but he is a much more valuable player to the Oilers if he can succesfully outscore the top line of the other team and thus give the 2nd line a chance to play against weaker players.

 

[JimEIV]

Majoring in Comp Sci with a minor in Statistics.........This sounds like astrology to me.

 

[dawgbone]

And I for one have never claimed him to be a shut down center (which could be the case down the road, still early), really don't think anybody has from our side, but did it ever occur that if he used in soft situations it's probably an attempt of the coach to take advantage of his offensive skills and not so much an attempt to hide any flaws in Parise defensive game, if there is any?

Think about that for a couple of minutes. If you could lineup Parise against Forsberg and have Parise win the out-scoring battle, wouldn't it make sense to do that? The only guaranteed way to win a hockey game is have your first line outscore their firstline, your 2nd line outscore their 2nd line, your 3rd line outscore their 3rd line and your 4th line outscore their 4th line. Once you start matching your 3rd line agaisnt their 1st line, you have to hope your 1st line can outscore their 3rd line by at least as much as their 1st line outscores your 3rd line.

We in Edmonton saw how this worked with Doug Weight. Moreau-Marchant-Grier always matched up against the opponents best line, and we hid the Doug Weight line from everyone. What happened? The Oilers were a medicore team the saw Doug Weight inflate his point totals to get a fat contract then leave. Our checking line always matched up against the oppositions best and we were a 90 point team. Now look at our team. We've lost guys like Doug Weight and Mike Comrie, and are still a 90 point team. The reason being is the Oilers now match up their best outscorers (Smyth, Horcoff, Dvorak, York) against the other teams best players. We have no where near the name recognition that we used to, but we are a better team (our schedule is harder now than it was when Weight was an Oiler).

I mean you could try and use Parise's offense against weaker players to try and use it to your advantage... but to be honest, that only really works if you have a John Madden or a Jere Lehtinen on the team (they are about the only 2 players in the league who you can match a checking line vs top line and come out ahead on most nights). Other than that, you aren't giving yourself the best chance to win.

I mean does any coach look to put his best offensive players head to head to the opponents best defensive players, hell no. They are always going to try to put them against a line that have the best chance of producing.

You have this one-dimensional view of hockey. It's all about offensive and defensive players to you. In an ideal situation, a coach matches top line vs top line. Forsberg never plays against an oppositions 4th line, he's always out there against their very best. He'd get a tonne more points playing agaisnt a 4th line, but it wouldn't necessarily help his team as much. The best recipe for success is to outscore every line, and most teams don't have 3rd lines that can outscore first lines (in fact, unless you consider Madden and Lehtinen 3rd line players, there aren't any lines, at least when playing good teams). Ryan Smyth is not a great defensive player (he's probably slightly above average, but in terms of reading plays in his end, or knowing when to double team the puck, he does not compare to a guy like Lehtinen). He's a great out-scorer, but he isn't a great defensive player. I mean he is effective because most of the time when he is on the ice, the puck is in the other teams zone. They can't score when the puck is in their end of the ice.

Guys like Lehtinen and Madden are unique because they can outscore the top lines... not just hold them close. If you can get that out of players, then running good offensive players out against the crappier lines is a solid move. But that's why teams like the Devils or Stars didn't fret when guys like Mogilny or Hull left... you can get similar outscoring against weaker opposition for a fraction of the cost.

 

[dawgbone]

Majoring in Comp Sci with a minor in Statistics.........This sounds like astrology to me.

Then you should switch programs... because most of it is common sense.

 

[oil slick]

Majoring in Comp Sci with a minor in Statistics.........This sounds like astrology to me.

PhD in Comp Sci. Good luck with that degree if you think this is the same as astrology.

Trying to apply stats to the real world is rarely an exact science, but if you can't see how there might be something to these stats...

 

[JimEIV]

PhD in Comp Sci. Good luck with that degree if you think this is the same as astrology.

Trying to apply stats to the real world is rarely an exact science, but if you can't see how there might be something to these stats...

Ohhh the numbers and the math are quite real, the analysis is where the mythology begins.

I used to have a Stat Proffessor that said someone dies every time I pound the desk.............He would go on to prove it statiscally......Statiscally he was correct, But there was NO CAUSALITY, to him pounding the desk and a death.

 

[oil slick]

Ohhh the numbers and the math are quite real, the analysis is where the mythology begins.

I used to have a Stat Proffessor that that some dies every time I pound the desk.............He would go on to prove it statiscally......Statiscally he was correct, But there was NO CAUSALITY, to him pounding the desk and a death.

Cute analogy, but your application of this analogy to this situation is beyond me.

A player being outscored when playing against weak opponents (opponents who are by definition outscored by most of their oponents) is a bad thing. Particularly when his linemates do much better in the same situation when they are not playing with him.

Definative... no. Astrology... no.

 

[JimEIV]

Cute analogy, but your application of this analogy to this situation is beyond me.

A player being outscored when playing against weak opponents (opponents who are by definition outscored by most of their oponents) is a bad thing. Particularly when his linemates do much better in the same situation when they are not playing with him.

Definative... no. Astrology... no.

Statistical significance isn't the same as causality
An experiment is ideally designed so that (hypothetically) the independent variable(s) represent factors that cause change in the dependent variable(s). However, statistical inference makes no claims of causality. None at all. All that is being done is a computation of the probability that your null hypothesis is true. In scientific research, causality is established by

Having an explanatory theory of causality. An experimental result consistent with such a theory is a good thing, it's just not proof all by itself
Careful controls for biases. The more carefully you control for biases, the higher your confidence is that your experiment is really focused on the relationship you want to explare. Replication.

If there really is a causal relationship there, the experiment should be repeatable. This is a lot easier to do properly in chemistry or physics than it is in psychological experimentation, but it needs to be done in any case.

Even if you have all the above, your model may not explain everything and need to be refined. For example, the model of an indivisable atom was exceedingly useful for 19th century research into chemical reactions,a nd the development of the periodic table of elements. However, it wasn't sufficient to explain why if you had a lump of uranium it would emit radioactive particles and eventually transmute into lead. This lead to a new theory of the nucleus to explain these phenonema. This doesn't mean the old theory is useless -- the old theory probably explains everything you ever did in high school chemistry and most of what you did in college chemistry, (assuming you continued to take any chemistry, that is). However, scientific models attempt to explain all measured phenomena as accurately as possible