Projections and Pace

[Video Nasty]

Soon we’ll be entering the final quarter of the regular season.

This thought came to me after seeing the Avs get shutout again and MacKinnion and Rantanen going pointless yet again and thinking how they might struggle to hit even a 100 points for the year.

As with every season, people project what a player is doing and then think that they will keep up a torrid pace for the rest of the season.

Why do people think pace is worth anything at all? We’re probably all guilty of it at one point or another where we get swept up in a player’s great season and then do some simple math and fantasize about them hitting 60+ goals and 140+ points but it almost never pans out. Players get tired, the game tightens up, some are rested for the playoffs if their team is in that fortunate position and the wear and tear of another long season piles up by the end.

Gretzky and Lemieux (if he could play most of the games) seem to be the only players in somewhat recent history who seemed immune to not hitting their “pace” totals by seasons end.

With another decade of seasons to look at, do people still seriously think that Crosby’s 32 goals 34 assists in 41 games really means he would have put up 64 goals 68 assists 132 points over a full season? We’ve seen it time and time again where almost every time a player puts up over 1.5 ppg, they fall back by the end of the season and settle in around 100-105.

So in the end, the question is, do you scoff at pace projections and dismiss a posters argument when it revolves around how so and so player is going to hit 65 goals this season or if so and so player plays 60 games and puts up 85 points, he would have actually had 115+ points and had the highest scoring season in a decade?

Click to read more...

 

[DearDiary]

That season was in Crosby's peak. He would have slowed down, but hit at least 120+ points.

 

[KingsFan7824]

As with any stat, you can make projection/pace say whatever you want it to say. However, like with any stat, if you give the numbers context, there's a story there. Since Christmas, Kane is scoring about about a 177 point pace over 82 games. It will likely not last for the rest of the season, it's a snapshot in time, but you can see how Chicago has gotten back in the race.

 

[AvsFan29]

Soon we’ll be entering the final quarter of the regular season.

This thought came to me after seeing the Avs get shutout again and MacKinnion and Rantanen going pointless yet again and thinking how they might struggle to hit even a 100 points for the year.

As with every season, people project what a player is doing and then think that they will keep up a torrid pace for the rest of the season.

Why do people think pace is worth anything at all? We’re probably all guilty of it at one point or another where we get swept up in a player’s great season and then do some simple math and fantasize about them hitting 60+ goals and 140+ points but it almost never pans out. Players get tired, the game tightens up, some are rested for the playoffs if their team is in that fortunate position and the wear and tear of another long season piles up by the end.

Gretzky and Lemieux (if he could play most of the games) seem to be the only players in somewhat recent history who seemed immune to not hitting their “pace” totals by seasons end.

With another decade of seasons to look at, do people still seriously think that Crosby’s 32 goals 34 assists in 41 games really means he would have put up 64 goals 68 assists 132 points over a full season? We’ve seen it time and time again where almost every time a player puts up over 1.5 ppg, they fall back by the end of the season and settle in around 100-105.

So in the end, the question is, do you scoff at pace projections and dismiss a posters argument when it revolves around how so and so player is going to hit 65 goals this season or if so and so player plays 60 games and puts up 85 points, he would have actually had 115+ points and had the highest scoring season in a decade?

Because even though MacKinnon and Rantanen have been cold lately, their pace holds up over around 140 games.

So does McDavids. And Kucherovs.

Those 4 players have been on a steady pace for a long time, and projecting where they might end up, is pretty accurate.

 

[Video Nasty]

That season was in Crosby's peak. He would have slowed down, but hit at least 120+ points.

What about another Crosby example? The only season where he actually hit 120 points. He had 97 points in his first 58 games. He finished with 23 points in his final 21 games played.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

It depends on the situation- if Ovi starts the season on pace for 60 goals I think it doable but unlikely. Means he'll likely hit 40 though, depending on how far into the season we are. But if it's, say, Kane on pace for 60 I'm a bit more skeptical.

Pace is just fun to consider, you gotta weigh history, shooting percentage, puck luck, and how they actually look on the ice. Nothing in his past suggested Skinner would keep up a 60 goal pace, but he's done well keeping it around 50. I definitely don't believe pace is a great indicator, but I don't completely ignore it either. People tend to use it when a player is playing their best, a 10%+ drop off is pretty normal, just depends on the player how much that drop off is. Someone like Gaudreau- his pace this season is pretty useful. Great player, his pace had him well above his 60-80 point norms, and sure enough he's having a career year. Laine's pace.. useless.

 

[Neuf]

Prorating, pace, or using p/60 as a predictive statistic are the worst.

But by next October no one will remember that Rantanen didn't have 150 points or that Matthews didn't score 65 goals. It will all happen again.

 

[DearDiary]

What about another Crosby example? The only season where he actually hit 120 points. He had 97 points in his first 58 games. He finished with 23 points in his final 21 games played.

That season didn't happen in his peak, so why is it relevant? Players put up their best numbers during their peaks, what they did in their first few seasons has no bearing on it

 

[Video Nasty]

That season didn't happen in his peak, so why is it relevant? Players put up their best numbers during their peaks, what they did in their first few seasons has no bearing on it

In retrospect, it was his regular season peak. The only season he topped 109 points and was healthy the whole year. He was excellent for that half season but there’s nothing to convince me that he would topped any of his career highs in goals, assists and points.