Parise for Pouliot, Jacques

[Cerebral]

I don't expect you to beleive me... you won't until you spend some time and try it out. It's difficult to grasp, and your natural reaction is to beleive everything you see in game or read in the paper or on the internet that pertains to your belief. Spend time watching what coaches do... especially at home (where they get the matchups they want). Even better is a home and home series, where you can count matchups. Watch a Colorado-Dallas game and watch how many times Modanno lines up against Forsberg (both home and away). Look for the good outscorers in the league and when two teams face off, how often the best on each team lines up against each other (Dallas-Colorado is a good one).

It took me a long time to start seeing this way (see some of my fights with Mudcrutch ) but I'm finally starting to come around. I definitely don't think statistics can tell you everything about a hockey player but they certainly provide a lot of valuable information that the casual fan will never pick up on.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Statistics are very interesting and there has been much inspiring dialogue on the Oiler site. However the challenge can be with interpreting data. If viewed too narrowly sometimes the bigger picture and perhaps true reality is missed.

I'm not sure if this game sheet imports very cleanly. But I copied it over from the Albany website. I've bolded the specific game for those who want to search it out.

If one looks solely at +/- then Parise appears to have a bad result at -1.

However looking more broadly, he contributed 4 points with 3 on the power play (which result in no +/- record despite being positive results for his team).

He was also on the ice in the final minute of the game and contributed to an extra-man goal to tie the game and send it to overtime.

Conclusions I might draw from these results:
- Looking only at +/- I might conclude Parise had a bad game at -1.
- Looking at point total (4), I would say he's had a very good game.
- Looking at his power play results (3), I would say he is an important player.
- Looking at the fact he's on the ice in the last minute of a game in which his team is losing, suggest he is an important player to his team.

My point is to not champion Parise using this isolated example, but to provide more fodder for discussion about the use of statistics and their interpretation.

Now here is an odd ball idea ... what if a power play point was rewarded with a +.5 value so that some acknowledgement is given to such contribution. Instead of the existing null value which is assigned currently. Looking at this case in such a light, Parise would be an overall +.5 which might be a closer reflection to his overall contribution in this game.


POINTSTREAK.COM PRINTABLE GAMESHEET:
Pepsi Arena
Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 7:00 pm

Providence 5 at Albany 4
Referee: Brian Pochmara (43) Attendance: 2,442
Linesman: Mike Emanatian (69)
Jim Harper (59) Game Length:
Game Number: 2:22
325
FINAL - SHOOTOUT
Scoring 1 2 3 OT SO T
Providence 1 2 1 0 1 5
Albany 2 0 2 0 0 4
Shots 1 2 3 OT SO T
Providence 9 9 4 3 1 26
Albany 8 11 9 1 0 29
Power Plays PP PIM
Providence 0-4 20
Albany 3-8 12

V - H # Per Team Time Scored By Assists PP SH Players On Ice
0 - 1 1 1 ALB 4:34 D.McAmmond A.Suglobov Z.Parise x V 2 5 19 37 H 2 10 11 19 22
1 - 1 2 1 PRO 6:21 D.Scoville A.Hilbert J.Leach V 2 9 19 22 37 H 2 11 12 15 26
1 - 2 3 1 ALB 14:32 A.Suglobov Z.Parise D.McAmmond x V 2 9 12 22 H 2 10 11 19 22
2 - 2 4 2 PRO 5:52 K.Dallman B.Boyes K.Aucoin V 4 5 11 16 24 H 3 5 11 19 22
3 - 2 5 2 PRO 18:17 J.Leach L.Hayward Y.Treille V 2 5 7 8 15 H 3 5 15 16 17
4 - 2 6 3 PRO 4:50 P.Bergeron A.Hilbert D.Gove V 3 9 18 19 37 H 5 10 19 22 26
4 - 3 7 3 ALB 14:40 B.Allen Z.Parise A.Suglobov x V 2 3 15 19 H 2 10 11 19 22
4 - 4 8 3 ALB 19:29 A.Suglobov (ea) D.McAmmond Z.Parise V 3 11 16 18 24 H 2 3 10 11 21 22
5 - 4 9 SHO PRO
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Providence Roster Albany Roster Penalties
# Name G A +/- S Pim
2 J.Leach 1 1 +2 1 2
3 B.Thompson 0 0 0 1 4
4 K.Dallman 1 0 +1 1 0
5 J.Filipowicz 0 0 +2 0 0
6 P.Aufiero 0 0 0 1 0
7 Y.Treille 0 1 +1 0 0
8 B.Guite 0 0 +1 0 2
9 D.Gove 0 1 +2 0 0
11 K.Aucoin 0 1 0 1 0
12 M.Samuelsson 0 0 0 0 0
15 L.Hayward 0 1 +1 1 0
16 J.Henderson 0 0 0 1 4
18 M.Jurcina 0 0 0 3 2
19 A.Hilbert 0 2 +2 8 2
22 D.Scoville 1 0 +1 2 4
24 B.Boyes 0 1 0 2 0
29 C.Rudkowsky 0 0 0 0 0
37 P.Bergeron 1 0 +2 2 0
44 C.Orr 0 0 0 1 0


Totals: 4 8 +15 25 20
Goalies Min Sh Sv Ga
29 C.Rudkowsky (win) 64:57 29 25 4


Totals: 64:57 29 25 4
# Name G A +/- S Pim
2 B.Allen 1 0 0 3 0
3 M.DeMarchi 0 0 -1 0 0
5 R.Schultz 0 0 -3 1 2
6 P.Cole 0 0 0 0 0
10 D.McAmmond 1 2 0 6 2
11 Z.Parise 0 4 -1 6 0
12 I.Pikkarainen 0 0 -1 0 0
15 I.Khomutov 0 0 -2 1 0
16 A.Nittel 0 0 -1 1 2
17 C.Janssen 0 0 -1 0 4
18 B.Clouthier 0 0 0 0 0
19 A.Voros 0 0 -2 1 0
20 R.Murphy 0 0 0 2 0
21 P.Rheaume 0 0 +1 2 2
22 A.Suglobov 2 2 -1 3 0
26 T.Kesa 0 0 -2 3 0
27 K.Redlihs 0 0 0 0 0
29 R.Skrlac 0 0 0 0 0
31 A.Ahonen 0 0 0 0 0


Totals: 4 8 -14 29 12
Goalies Mins Sh Sv Ga
31 A.Ahonen (sol) 64:47 25 21 4


Totals: 64:47 25 21 4
P T Player M Offense Time
1 V M.Jurcina 2 High Sticking 4:03
1 V J.Henderson 2 Unsportsmanlike. 6:59
1 H C.Janssen 2 Unsportsmanlike. 6:59
1 V J.Leach 2 Holding 11:06
1 V B.Thompson 2 Delay of Game 13:23
1 H P.Rheaume 2 Holding Stick 14:56
1 V D.Scoville 2 Hooking 15:13
2 V B.Thompson 2 Tripping 2:51
2 V J.Henderson 2 Elbowing 8:56
2 H D.McAmmond 2 Holding 13:17
2 V A.Hilbert 2 Cross Checking 19:41
2 H R.Schultz 2 Roughing 19:41
3 H C.Janssen 2 Charging 6:25
3 V D.Scoville 2 Hooking 7:53
3 V B.Guite 2 Slashing 13:50
OT H A.Nittel 2 Hooking 0:32





Total Min: 32 Total Offenses: 16
Shootout
Providence Albany
Shooter Score
B.Boyes no
P.Bergeron no
A.Hilbert yes
K.Aucoin yes
Score Shooter
no Z.Parise
no A.Suglobov
no D.McAmmond
no I.Khomutov

Totals: 2 0

 

[Asiaoil]

DAMN is this a long thread!!! IMO the best thing to do is see what kind of AHL rookie seasons Pouliot and Jacques have next year. The Runners won't be the greatest team and Pouliot maybe playing behind Brodziak or another vet "I hope not!!!". So we shall see, until then IMO this discussion is just repetitious and flat out annoying!!! Parise is a good prospect as is Pouliot and Jacques. Until there's a comperable basis "Next Season" this is pointless.

Hey BBO - I actually think this was useful in that a few more people were introduced to a concept that might change the way they watch the game. It's not perfect but sure as hell beats the usual BS that flies around here. Most folks were actually pretty level-headed and open about it. MacIsaac is beyond hope - but no loss there

I do believe we are outta here.

Peace

 

[Lowetide]

I haven't seen this mentioned, sorry if I missed it. One of the things that might help us get a line on this kid (if the evidence presented isn't enough) is to go back over a few seasons and see what other 20 year old rookie centers have done as rookies in the AHL. Most of the really good ones were already in the NHL, but Parise didn't have that option. You'd have to cheat a little since this past season's AHL was stronger than the league has been (or so it would seem to all of us), but it might be interesting to stack Parise's 5x5 EV+, EV- against some of the other 20's who've drifted by recently.

Apples to apples, as it were.

 

[JimEIV]

Statistics are very interesting and there has been much inspiring dialogue on the Oiler site. However the challenge can be with interpreting data. If viewed too narrowly sometimes the bigger picture and perhaps true reality is missed.

That is my entire point.

I agree the "outscore" data has value, and applying that data to the opposition has some value, although even this category ("opposition") is far to dynamic to draw inferences from in my opinion, you maybe able to achieve statistical significance, but not cause and effect, because to many variables are changing from case to case. Nevertheless it still can be useful.

Now when you try to use this data comparing how a player does with and without other players and versus opposition, I truly believe there is a scientific breakdown.

You have two sets of dynamic variables 1.Teammates, 2. Opposition........The permutations of these two dynamic Variables can be in the 1000's, Yet the method is trying to analyze 1 player to 1 player. To look at a 1 to 1 relationship while factoring in 1000's of constantly changing possibilities and combinations to find the truth does not work by simply dividing the sum.

You see A, B, C must stay the same........ But the example of hockey (or life in general) it can never stay the same. Defense is changing, goalies are changing, teammates are changing, opposition defense is changing, opposition lines are changing, and opposition goalies are changing. And on top of all of that change, Situations are changing!

So really, one Goal at one point in time is somewhat unique. To show the individual player over the long haul against various opposition has value, but when you mix and match the variables the picture become less reliable. Again statistical significance maybe achieved, but cause and effect cannot be shown. This is very important. Because this means the method will have anomalies, there is no question about this.

 

[Crosbyfan]

That's not cause and effect. Cause and effect would be everyone who smoked or mined coal getting lung cancer. There are very few things that cause lung cancer (in other words if you do it, you will get lung cancer), but there's a list of stuff long enough to reach the moon that can increase your risk of acquiring lung cancer.

So let's make up our mind here kids... are we talking about cause and effect, or are we talking about likely outcomes? Nothing like changing the song when you have no idea what the words are.



That's cute... idiotic... but cute. Fitting.

This is not correct! While I cannot say absolutely that smoking causes cancer you cannot say there is no cause and effect.

Automobile accidents kill people. If you just look at the data without the specific case details you can see there is a correlation but I agree that you cannot establish cause and effect absolutely on the data alone. But that does not mean there is no cause and effect, just that you don't know the details.

And yet all automobile accidents don't kill people.

 

[dawgbone]

This is not correct! While I cannot say absolutely that smoking causes cancer you cannot say there is no cause and effect.

Automobile accidents kill people. If you just look at the data without the specific case details you can see there is a correlation but I agree that you cannot establish cause and effect absolutely on the data alone. But that does not mean there is no cause and effect, just that you don't know the details.

And yet all automobile accidents don't kill people.

Do automobile accidents kill people, or does speeding and getting into an accident kill people? Or does drinking and driving and getting in to an accident kill people? Or falling asleep and getting into an accident kill people?

Does smoking cause lung cancer, or does a pre-disposed condition + smoking cause cancer?

Don't forget, the purpose of cause and effect is to determine reasons and predict results. That is the entire purpose of cause and effect, to both figure out why, and predict future behaviour.

So saying smoking causes cancer is fundamentally wrong, because not everyone who smokes gets cancer, so predicting it is impossible. Cause and effect do not work solely in the past-tense.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Do automobile accidents kill people, or does speeding and getting into an accident kill people? Or does drinking and driving and getting in to an accident kill people? Or falling asleep and getting into an accident kill people?

Does smoking cause lung cancer, or does a pre-disposed condition + smoking cause cancer?

Don't forget, the purpose of cause and effect is to determine reasons and predict results. That is the entire purpose of cause and effect, to both figure out why, and predict future behaviour.

So saying smoking causes cancer is fundamentally wrong, because not everyone who smokes gets cancer, so predicting it is impossible. Cause and effect do not work solely in the past-tense.

Yes to every question. (although in an absolute sense I cannot prove that)

Cause and effect does not have a purpose. (are you saying cause and effect where you mean some form of cause and effect analysis?)

Saying smoking does not cause cancer is fundamentally wrong.

 

[dawgbone]

Yes to every question. (although in an absolute sense I cannot prove that)

Cause and effect does not have a purpose. (are you saying cause and effect where you mean some form of cause and effect analysis?)

Saying smoking does not cause cancer is fundamentally wrong.

The purpose of cause and effect is to come to predictive conclusions... you cannot come to predictive conclusions on smoking. Smoking does not cause cancer. Not everyone who smokes will get cancer... hence, smoking does not cause cancer.

Smoking increases your risk of cancer, but true cause and effect is predictive, and you cannot predict who will get cancer from smoking.

Otherwise, what you are saying is that anything can be cause and effect. Eating peanut butter kills people.

Is that correct? Well it's not, because it isn't predictive.

 

[Crosbyfan]

The purpose of cause and effect is to come to predictive conclusions... you cannot come to predictive conclusions on smoking. Smoking does not cause cancer. Not everyone who smokes will get cancer... hence, smoking does not cause cancer.

Smoking increases your risk of cancer, but true cause and effect is predictive, and you cannot predict who will get cancer from smoking.

Otherwise, what you are saying is that anything can be cause and effect. Eating peanut butter kills people.

Is that correct? Well it's not, because it isn't predictive.

Cause and effect do not have a purpose.

Cause and effect do not care whether you can predict it.

Lack of knowledge and statistical data alone is not enough to prove cause and effect.

Equally: Lack of knowledge and statistical data alone is not enough to prove cause and effect does not exist.

It is very likely that eating peanut butter causes death in some people under some cicumstances. (compare that to my original statement on smoking and coalmining in post #260)

Requiring 100% statistical correlation is rubbish.

If a meteor lands on your house and kills you I would say there was a strong possibility it caused your death, even after I found out that one landed on your neighbours house, went through your neighbours brain and caused him permanent brain damage but he survived.

Similarly 100% statistical correlation does not prove cause and effect. (see orange juice)

 

[dawgbone]

Cause and effect do not have a purpose.

Cause and effect do not care whether you can predict it.

However, a cause and effect study do... which is essentially the point we are after, and in fact pertains to this discussion. If you choose to continue to ignore that, that is up to you, but I won't take part in it anymore.

Smoking can cause lung cancer in certain people. Yes, but that certainly has nothing to do with a cause-effect study, which is what we are trying to prove.

We are trying to determine if something is predictive of the future here, which is a cause-effect study. Smoking and lung cancer are not predictive... the incidences for and against make the prediction scope way too wide. There are many more factors involved that prevent it from being a true cause-effect relationship.

Lack of knowledge and statistical data alone is not enough to prove cause and effect.

Equally: Lack of knowledge and statistical data alone is not enough to prove cause and effect does not exist.

Who is trying to prove anything with a lack of knoweledge? Obviously you'd need to know the basis of the test and relationship. I mean simply saying that 100% of the people in the study who drank orange juice got a hangover afterwards, without the other information of the study is essentially useless, but no one has done that yet.

No one is implying a lack of information.

It is very likely that eating peanut butter causes death in some people under some cicumstances. (compare that to my original statement on smoking and coalmining in post #260)

Requiring 100% statistical correlation is rubbish.

Granted, 100% correlation is next to impossible. But things like getting lung cancer from smoking, or dying from eating peanut butter aren't even 20% correlation. When you smoke, you do not necessarily get lung cancer. Smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years I can predict that you will get some form of ailment. It may not be lung cancer, but it may be heat disease, or high blood pressure. That is predictive. Smoking causes maladies for those who smoke for a long time. That is cause and effect. Virtually everyone who smokes for a long period of time will get some sort of ailment from it.

If a meteor lands on your house and kills you I would say there was a strong possibility it caused your death, even after I found out that one landed on your neighbours house, went through your neighbours brain and caused him permanent brain damage but he survived.

That's not true cause and effect though, at least nothing that you could apply for the purpose of predictive measures.

Think about it... why go through the purpose of a cause and effect study if you can't use the information from it for anything, other than looking back? Seems kind of useless doesn't it? Hence the reason why they say smoking increases your risk of lung cancer... because that is predictive. 96% of people with lung cancer were smokers. That is cause and effect. Smoking is the cause, and increasing your risk of lung cancer is the effect. The purpose isn't to find out why... it's to predict further results.

Similarly 100% statistical correlation does not prove cause and effect. (see orange juice)

Well naturally, when you run a fundamentally flawed study (like your orange juice one), 100% statistical correlation means nothing. Apparantly I gave you far more credit than you deserved... but I guess that is my fault. Cause and effect also requires other possible outlying conditions to be excluded first. How can you say it's orange juice when you haven't eliminated the other outliers first?

 

[Crosbyfan]

However, a cause and effect study do... ?

Don't agree with everything but that is much better. As I suspected you are confusing (not saying you were confused but what you wrote certainly was) a study to establish cause and effect with cause and effect itself.

I hope you don't smoke, or are one of the lucky ones if you do .

Smoking causes lung cancer. (insert usual qualifiers here)

 

[Lou is God]

What the hell happen to this thread?? Smoking, cancer, orange juice, WTF???

 

[Crosbyfan]

What the hell happen to this thread?? Smoking, cancer, orange juice, WTF???

You were OK with the autos and meteors though, right?

 

[Cerebral]

What the hell happen to this thread?? Smoking, cancer, orange juice, WTF???

Haha I have the same question. When I left we were talking about Mike York and statistics...

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Hijacked. This has become a pseudo-intellectualized dialogue about nothing...

 

[Asiaoil]

Parise's regular season is done and here are the final numbers:

73-gms 18-40-58 (5th place in rookie scoring and 0.79ppg) -11 56-pim 5-ppg 2-shg 6-gwg 202-shots .089-shooting%

Are these numbers respectable? - yes (especially the gwg total but the -11 and shooting percentage are pretty ugly)
Do Pouliot and Jacques realistically have the potential to match them? - yes
Final verdict - tune in next year on this date after JFJ and MAP finish their first pro season

 

[dawgbone]

Hijacked. This has become a pseudo-intellectualized dialogue about nothing...

What else do you expect when I'm around?

and

Why on earth are you suprised?