Sean Couturier Part III

[Ruck Over]

I saw the thread active
I opened it
I read all these posts
I knew better
But I still did it

I have no excuses. I did it to myself. When will I learn?

When you do learn, can you teach me?

I too want to learn to not self-immolate.

A lot of these fans complaining about Couts are just jerks.

Couts is a Joel Otto clone'ish (hey, they were both born in America even, I know Couts is a Canadian, just sayin). Calgary didn't need Otto to score to be effective, they needed him to handle Mark Messier.
Calgary likely doesn't have the success for that one season in 89, nor the boiling rivalry with Edmonton, if not for Otto. And as Otto was behind Nieuwendyk and Gilmour, hopefully Patrick lives up to hype and Couts slots behind him and Giroux.

Blah, my opinion - no messy facts, guys like Couts are important to winning teams. The depth and grit he adds allows the "pretty players" to play "pretty hockey". In the same way a lot of fans attempted to rationalize Boyd Gordon as relieving pressure from Giroux, Couts actually does that. If someone is looking to Couts as a detriment or shortfall on the team, they are mistaken and looking in the wrong places. (Unless that detriment is a lack of front teeth for formal headshot photographs for "Happy full smile of teeth" magazine.)

 

[Alchemy]

Alchemy let's make a bet on whether Couts gets 40 point this year. If under 40 I will start every one of my posts for the season with "Alchemy was right about Couts" if he scores 40 or more then you start every one of your posts with "I was wrong about Couts"

Its not that serious to me. I don't care if im "Wrong" or "Right".

You act like i give a damn about what anybody thinks on this board. LOL. Oh wow i am right on HFboards. Somebody pat me on the back.

 

[Beef Invictus]

So, now that it's been demonstrated that Couts' linemates score more with him than they do away from him, will you be adjusting your opinion to match facts?

 

[Daveyyaunce]

So, now that it's been demonstrated that Couts' linemates score more with him than they do away from him, will you be adjusting your opinion to match facts?

Those are alternative facts though.

 

[Ruck Over]

Those are alternative facts though.

Alternative to what?

 

[Daveyyaunce]

Alternative to what?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

 

[Daveyyaunce]

Just for the record, I'm not saying Beef gave alternative facts, just that there's a certain sect of our fan base that has some unfortunate opinions.

 

[Chicken Chaser]

Holy Crap... I'm a Cout's critic but jeebus... He'll inevitably have a bump in points this year just from the boost in talent this team's about to get...

And he'll still be kind of a dinkus with the puck in the ozone 5 feet and beyond the from the net, and that's ok.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

Its not that serious to me. I don't care if im "Wrong" or "Right".

You act like i give a damn about what anybody thinks on this board. LOL. Oh wow i am right on HFboards. Somebody pat me on the back.

We'll since you clearly don't care either way, and this is all just a good time to you. Let's just make that bet for the hell of it. One of us has to add something funny to our post. It will be a good time.

 

[Larry44]

I too want to learn to not self-immolate.

A lot of these fans complaining about Couts are just jerks.

Couts is a Joel Otto clone'ish (hey, they were both born in America even, I know Couts is a Canadian, just sayin). Calgary didn't need Otto to score to be effective, they needed him to handle Mark Messier.
Calgary likely doesn't have the success for that one season in 89, nor the boiling rivalry with Edmonton, if not for Otto. And as Otto was behind Nieuwendyk and Gilmour, hopefully Patrick lives up to hype and Couts slots behind him and Giroux.

Blah, my opinion - no messy facts, guys like Couts are important to winning teams. The depth and grit he adds allows the "pretty players" to play "pretty hockey". In the same way a lot of fans attempted to rationalize Boyd Gordon as relieving pressure from Giroux, Couts actually does that. If someone is looking to Couts as a detriment or shortfall on the team, they are mistaken and looking in the wrong places. (Unless that detriment is a lack of front teeth for formal headshot photographs for "Happy full smile of teeth" magazine.)

Well put. Couts is a great player.

 

[Rebels57]

I too want to learn to not self-immolate.

A lot of these fans complaining about Couts are just jerks.

Couts is a Joel Otto clone'ish (hey, they were both born in America even, I know Couts is a Canadian, just sayin). Calgary didn't need Otto to score to be effective, they needed him to handle Mark Messier.
Calgary likely doesn't have the success for that one season in 89, nor the boiling rivalry with Edmonton, if not for Otto. And as Otto was behind Nieuwendyk and Gilmour, hopefully Patrick lives up to hype and Couts slots behind him and Giroux.

Blah, my opinion - no messy facts, guys like Couts are important to winning teams. The depth and grit he adds allows the "pretty players" to play "pretty hockey". In the same way a lot of fans attempted to rationalize Boyd Gordon as relieving pressure from Giroux, Couts actually does that. If someone is looking to Couts as a detriment or shortfall on the team, they are mistaken and looking in the wrong places. (Unless that detriment is a lack of front teeth for formal headshot photographs for "Happy full smile of teeth" magazine.)

Outstanding post

 

[MacDonald4MVP]

Well put. Couts is a great player.

Yes he is, but he has so many things going against him though. He doesn't hit so casual fans won't like him. He is slow so casual fans don't like him. One on one his shoot can't beat a goalie so just more of the same. Really he is one of the best examples of reversed all the tools no toolbox players in the league and recognizing that toolbox part isn't as easy as other way around, that's why players in that mold get overlooked.

 

[Johnk0728]

Well put. Couts is a great player.

Come one guys...Great? Great players win Hart Trophy's etc. Sidney Crosby is great. Couturier is a good third line center and yes.....great teams need players of his ilk to win. But Sean Couturier has not won anything and has not enjoyed any real playoff success. Throwing around the word great to describe Sean Couturier at this point is ridiculous. He is young and has a lot of hockey to play but to call him great now is just pure homerism and blind allegiance to analytics.... maybe he will become a great player but he has done nothing to earn greatness status yet. Be honest....

 

[Johnk0728]

Here maybe this will help the ill-informed

https://section215.com/2017/07/29/philadelphia-flyers-we-dont-deserve-sean-couturier/

So Sean Couturier is better than Jeff Carter .... Stop throwing these advanced metrics out like they are gospel. They aren't..... They are just a piece of analysis used not the definitive end-all proclamation. This board follows this stuff as if its all that matters. Sean Couturier is a third line/PK'er. Stop using cherry-picked metrics to prove more than that. I know one thing when he is going in all alone on the goalie...most people aren't confident he is scoring due to his limited skillset.

 

[Flyotes]

Came for 3rd line center talk. Much success.

 

[Daveyyaunce]

So Sean Couturier is better than Jeff Carter .... Stop throwing these advanced metrics out like they are gospel. They aren't..... They are just a piece of analysis used not the definitive end-all proclamation. This board follows this stuff as if its all that matters. Sean Couturier is a third line/PK'er. Stop using cherry-picked metrics to prove more than that. I know one thing when he is going in all alone on the goalie...most people aren't confident he is scoring due to his limited skillset.

So simply looking at a scoreboard with no context is better than relying on metrics? No wonder we have to rely other media outlets for serious hockey discussion.

 

[Beef Invictus]

So Sean Couturier is better than Jeff Carter .... Stop throwing these advanced metrics out like they are gospel. They aren't..... They are just a piece of analysis used not the definitive end-all proclamation. This board follows this stuff as if its all that matters. Sean Couturier is a third line/PK'er. Stop using cherry-picked metrics to prove more than that. I know one thing when he is going in all alone on the goalie...most people aren't confident he is scoring due to his limited skillset.

Please elaborate on what is cherry-picked, and how. Go on, provide a more complete picture.

 

[hatcher]

Coots couldn't tie Carters skates.

 

[Johnk0728]

So simply looking at a scoreboard with no context is better than relying on metrics? No wonder we have to rely other media outlets for serious hockey discussion.

I didn't say that...but the scoreboard is the ultimate measurement in hockey. As is the the win/ loss column. Controlled entries are not the things that are counted it's goals. And controlled entries are a subjective determination that makeup one of the metrics...and that's where alot of hockey fans are just plain tired of hearing from people who rely solely on analytics. The data is never questioned......and leading a non playoff team that struggled to score goals in 5 on 5 scoring is not a big accomplishment.

 

[Johnk0728]

Please elaborate on what is cherry-picked, and how. Go on, provide a more complete picture.

You avoid his scoring slumps. He was bad for more than half of last year and no critique. I read one stat quoted in this thread where Matt Read had a higher number....That should question the stat itself. Read is not an NHL player anymore. Sean Couturier is a solid NHL third liner. But he is not great. If you think he is great, than elaborate on the term great as it pertains to an NHL player.
Great players score 60+ points while playing both ways and leading on the power play and PK. Giroux was great a few years ago. Couturier has not even come close to that level...do you agree with that?

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I didn't say that...but the scoreboard is the ultimate measurement in hockey. As is the the win/ loss column. Controlled entries are not the things that are counted it's goals. And controlled entries are a subjective determination that makeup one of the metrics...and that's where alot of hockey fans are just plain tired of hearing from people who rely solely on analytics. The data is never questioned......and leading a non playoff team that struggled to score goals in 5 on 5 scoring is not a big accomplishment.

Minus the bolded, this is a gross misrepresentation of well, everything.

Do some people blindly quote numbers without looking into what they are describing or determining how they have value? Of course, just as some people count wins and vote for Chris Osgood to be elected to the Hall of Fame. That doesn't invalidate some of the excellent work out there on both sides. It just means some people are misguided. As far as blindly trusting the data, I would encourage you to look into the rise and fall of Zone Starts in analytical favor. When introduced, they were thought to provide meaningful context that impacted shot metrics. The more people dig into it, the more it looks like they have minimal impact outside of the first 15 seconds of a fraction of shifts, thereby muting their descriptive value significantly.

The entire point of good analytics is to combine it with traditional scouting to give us better tools to evaluate players. Both sides give us different, useful data. It's vital to know which metrics are descriptive and which are predictive and never to use one for the other purpose. One thing that I really have grown to appreciate is how baseball has grown to understand the importance of explaining the limitations of its numbers more clearly. I'll quote from Fangraphs' Library here:

Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of Sabremetrics is the way in which WAR is used. Given the nature of the calculation and potential measurement errors, WAR should be used as a guide for separating groups of players and not as a precise estimate. For example, a player that has been worth 6.4 WAR and a player that has been worth 6.1 WAR over the course of a season cannot be distinguished from one another using WAR. It is simply too close for this particular tool to tell them apart. WAR can tell you that these two players are likely about equal in value, but you need to dig deeper to separate them.

However, a 6.4 WAR player and a 4.1 WAR player are different enough that you can have a high level of confidence that the first player has been more valuable to their team over the given season.

Even in catch-all number form, perspective is needed. Unfortunately, some people take it too far in the other direction and say that Goals are the only way to measure players. Again, perspective. Goals don't happen very often. Given enough of a sample size, Goals are absolutely, positively the ultimate measure of worth. We just get too much noise in our sample sizes to use them to evaluate play over the short and medium term.

 

[Striiker]

Wierd to see this kind of discussion in the Couturier thread...

Usually it's in all the other ones, instead.

 

[Daveyyaunce]

I didn't say that...but the scoreboard is the ultimate measurement in hockey. As is the the win/ loss column. Controlled entries are not the things that are counted it's goals. And controlled entries are a subjective determination that makeup one of the metrics...and that's where alot of hockey fans are just plain tired of hearing from people who rely solely on analytics. The data is never questioned......and leading a non playoff team that struggled to score goals in 5 on 5 scoring is not a big accomplishment.

Nobody is relying solely on analytics. You cant rely solely on points either. Sam Gagner outscored Couturier this year, do you genuinely believe Gagner is a better player?

 

[Beef Invictus]

You avoid his scoring slumps. He was bad for more than half of last year and no critique. I read one stat quoted in this thread where Matt Read had a higher number....That should question the stat itself. Read is not an NHL player anymore. Sean Couturier is a solid NHL third liner. But he is not great. If you think he is great, than elaborate on the term great as it pertains to an NHL player.
Great players score 60+ points while playing both ways and leading on the power play and PK. Giroux was great a few years ago. Couturier has not even come close to that level...do you agree with that?

Matt Read outperforming Couturier in a single metric discounts statistics for you?


So, in your argument against cherrypicked stats, you cherrypick a single stat.

 

[Curufinwe]

Nobody is relying solely on analytics. You cant rely solely on points either. Sam Gagner outscored Couturier this year, do you genuinely believe Gagner is a better player?

Better and cheaper. Hextall needs to be fired for letting Gagner go and keeping Couturier.