Windsor Spitfires 2018 Offseason Thread

[hockeylegend11]

Windsor 7

Spits scored 1PP goal in the 3rd not 2
Otters couldn't handle the Spits pressure in the 3rd,were outshot 18-5 in the process,Spits find ways to win especially late,Yes Dipietro played very well,though not tested in the 3rd till the very end,still they are averaging more then 4 goals per game in the last 16,so it's more then Dipietro winning them games.

 

[windsor7]

Windsor 7

Spits scored 1PP goal in the 3rd not 2
Otters couldn't handle the Spits pressure in the 3rd,were outshot 18-5 in the process,Spits find ways to win especially late,Yes Dipietro played very well,though not tested in the 3rd till the very end,still they are averaging more then 4 goals per game in the last 16,so it's more then Dipietro winning them games.

Without the saves dipietro made in the first n 2nd period windsor would of not had a chance to come back in the game. He has done this is many many games

 

[OHLTG]

To be fair to both goaltenders, they stole the show in the first 50 minutes. Without DiPieto, Erie scores another 2-3 more, but without Murphy, Windsor probably scores 3-4 early on their own. Yes, Windsor has been fine offensively over the last while but there was a point last night where one goal looked like a monumental chore. It wasn't pretty. I did say at the game, though, that one goal against Murphy would open up the gates; it happened.

 

[tomschman]

check that, the second goal would be considered most important since its still considered the game winning goal
all other goals (insurance goals) would be irrelevant.

Let me clarify. Team A jumps out to a 9 goal lead. In the last minute of the game, Team B scores to make it 9-1. The GWG moves from the player who scored the 1st goal to the player who scored the 2nd goal. Meaningless statistic.

 

[OHL4Life]

Let me clarify. Team A jumps out to a 9 goal lead. In the last minute of the game, Team B scores to make it 9-1. The GWG moves from the player who scored the 1st goal to the player who scored the 2nd goal. Meaningless statistic.

hes chosen that stat as a qualifier because its the only one that fits the 'kids are good' narrative. when you just look at points (like everyone else in the hockey world does) then they are not good.

next year it may be plus minus on sunday afternoon games

 

[RayzorIsDull]

Let me clarify. Team A jumps out to a 9 goal lead. In the last minute of the game, Team B scores to make it 9-1. The GWG moves from the player who scored the 1st goal to the player who scored the 2nd goal. Meaningless statistic.

Auston Matthews is tied for 82nd in GWG...... In fact Tom Kuhnhackl is only 1 GWG behind him for 82nd. I'm not sure what all of this means......

 

[hockeylegend11]

Auston Matthews is tied for 82nd in GWG...... In fact Tom Kuhnhackl is only 1 GWG behind him for 82nd. I'm not sure what all of this means......

About the same when leagues count plus/ minus stats, meaningless stats

 

[ohloutsider]

Auston Matthews is tied for 82nd in GWG...... In fact Tom Kuhnhackl is only 1 GWG behind him for 82nd. I'm not sure what all of this means......

Another set of numbers to keep "stat chat" going.

 

[hockeylegend11]

hes chosen that stat as a qualifier because its the only one that fits the 'kids are good' narrative. when you just look at points (like everyone else in the hockey world does) then they are not good.

next year it may be plus minus on sunday afternoon games

Says the guy who slagged Sirman earlier in the year.

 

[OHLTG]

We could look at GWG in another light - guy has a lot, good indication he's likely to be better under pressure. A team is going to win more 3-1 or 4-2 games than they are 9-1 games.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

We could look at GWG in another light - guy has a lot, good indication he's likely to be better under pressure. A team is going to win more 3-1 or 4-2 games than they are 9-1 games.

Better under pressure? Does that mean talented players that don't have GWG aren't good under pressure? Jonathan Ang just got his first GWG of the season last night for Peterborough he's a very good player just because he didn't have one before tonight doesn't mean he's not good under pressure.

 

[OHL4Life]

Says the guy who slagged Sirman earlier in the year.

you never answered why you never used gwg as an indicator in the past. i looked at your past posts, you always used points before.

are you saying that you changed by fluke the year that the spits 00/01s suck with points, you flip to another stat?

kinda like you flipped on the back door thing?

im just trying to find some kind of consistency here. when you keep changing what we judge rookies with, how can we ever know how good they are.

if none of our rookies score gwg's next year, are they bad? that seems dumb.

 

[OHL4Life]

We could look at GWG in another light - guy has a lot, good indication he's likely to be better under pressure. A team is going to win more 3-1 or 4-2 games than they are 9-1 games.

its not the main way to judge whether a player is exceeding expectations. there are way better advanced analytics like gp/p, pg/pp, p/60, shots/gp to judge players. gwg isnt measured in advanced analytics for the most part because its viewed like plus minus, a dead stat.

 

[OHLTG]

Better under pressure? Does that mean talented players that don't have GWG aren't good under pressure? Jonathan Ang just got his first GWG of the season last night for Peterborough he's a very good player just because he didn't have one before tonight doesn't mean he's not good under pressure.

If you have two players, each with 10g on the season, in a clutch situation, and one has 3 GWG while the other has 0 GWG, who do you put on the ice? I know the answer. BTW, I said "better under pressure", not "good under pressure." There's a difference.

its not the main way to judge whether a player is exceeding expectations. there are way better advanced analytics like gp/p, pg/pp, p/60, shots/gp to judge players. gwg isnt measured in advanced analytics for the most part because its viewed like plus minus, a dead stat.

According to whom?

 

[OHL4Life]

According to whom?

every advanced stat website from corsica to ohl prospect stats. the ones that have been purchased by nhl teams like extra skater never included it.

they seem to know what they are talking about

cam charron and tyler dellow both written how they are meaningless in the big view of things (posts deleted after they where hired by the leafs/oilers respectively)

i could probably find more guys if youd like?

 

[hockeylegend11]

you never answered why you never used gwg as an indicator in the past. i looked at your past posts, you always used points before.

are you saying that you changed by fluke the year that the spits 00/01s suck with points, you flip to another stat?

kinda like you flipped on the back door thing?

im just trying to find some kind of consistency here. when you keep changing what we judge rookies with, how can we ever know how good they are.

if none of our rookies score gwg's next year, are they bad? that seems dumb.

I already answered your question re the backdoor thing awhile ago.
The GW stat was something I looked at for 16-17 year olds this season for the time
As for points,I now look at differently then 5 and more years ago.
I look at alot of variables,age, experience, linemates,and many more.try not to prejudge early in a career.
You on the other hand made unfair before the season started assertions
about players like Sirman, Stevenson,Smith before giving them a chance.

 

[OHLTG]

every advanced stat website from corsica to ohl prospect stats. the ones that have been purchased by nhl teams like extra skater never included it.

they seem to know what they are talking about

cam charron and tyler dellow both written how they are meaningless in the big view of things (posts deleted after they where hired by the leafs/oilers respectively)

i could probably find more guys if youd like?

Sure, up to you. Personally, I'm a fan of GWG and plus-minus. Both have their place.

 

[OHL4Life]

I already answered your question re the backdoor thing awhile ago..

right, but its still you moving the measuring stick based on the spits success or lack of success, theres no consistancy, similar to the gwg v points.

if you could point me to where i slagged either stevenson or smith that would be great. mizzi (cut) larionov (negative win value for a 19 year old), then yes, 100 percent i did the spits would be much better off having 2000s in the system versus them. i didnt like bringing in guys who where cut three times in other leagues, smith wasnt one of them.

amazing, the year that the spits 00/01s struggle with points is when you stop looking at it.

why gwg when guys like charron and dellow say its outdated and sites like extra skater dont bother tracking it? wouldn't points/60m or even shots/game be more of an indicator of how a player is involved in a game? you can use gwg, but no one else does, which seems odd that you would chose to use it when smarter people then you or I mention it.

sirman is a 99, there are players in the league with 0.3 pts/game for a 99 in this league is pretty sub standard. if thats what you want to parade as success, have at it. great for him that hes fonud a role, but he's statistically replacement level, but at least he's better then mizz/larionov that way.

 

[OHL4Life]

Sure, up to you. Personally, I'm a fan of GWG and plus-minus. Both have their place.

if you didnt care about the long list of guys like dellow or charron who have talked down gwg, why ask? you asked who, i provided quite a few references, and nothing? why ask then?

its fine if you like them, but you would be on an island in that sense. people who are smarter then you or me from a hockey statistics sense dismiss them. ignoring that is your prerogative, just doesnt seem like the smart thing to do with how hockey and analytics are evolving.

is this also the first year you have acknowledged gwgs as more important then points? odd don't you think.

its like the advances stats guys vs the 2014/15 leafs, we saw how that ended up, thats why guys like charron where hired. guys who just wanted to defend the leafs where proven wrong. dont care either way, but history does give us hints to the future.

 

[OHLTG]

" i didnt like bringing in guys who where cut three times in other leagues, smith wasnt one of them. "

--- ONE player out of 20+. When he's in the lineup, and not sick, he's actually a decent player. Only so much you can do when the sickness hits, though.

"if you didnt care about the long list of guys like dellow or charron who have talked down gwg, why ask? you asked who, i provided quite a few references, and nothing? why ask then?"

--- I've seen dozens of times online (not just here) where people throw situations out, but with no proof. So, I asked for proof. You gave that, to an extent. It didn't change my opinion, though, and I never said that it would. Nowhere did I say I was ignoring them, but I just believe the stats can be useful. I gave my example of GWG above.

Where did I say GWG were more important than points?

"sirman is a 99, there are players in the league who 0.3 pts/game for a 99 in this league is pretty sub standard."

--- How many rookies have 0.3pts/game? It doesn't matter if they're 98s or 01s, they're rookies.

 

[windsor7]

if you didnt care about the long list of guys like dellow or charron who have talked down gwg, why ask? you asked who, i provided quite a few references, and nothing? why ask then?

its fine if you like them, but you would be on an island in that sense. people who are smarter then you or me from a hockey statistics sense dismiss them. ignoring that is your prerogative, just doesnt seem like the smart thing to do with how hockey and analytics are evolving.

is this also the first year you have acknowledged gwgs as more important then points? odd don't you think.

its like the advances stats guys vs the 2014/15 leafs, we saw how that ended up, thats why guys like charron where hired. guys who just wanted to defend the leafs where proven wrong. dont care either way, but history does give us hints to the future.

It's a loss cause. Lol

 

[OHL4Life]

Where did I say GWG were more important than points?

youve often defended gwg, not once said that the lack of points was an issue, i assumed that that was how your felt. if it is not, you shouldnt defend it so much.

I've seen dozens of times online (not just here) where people throw situations out, but with no proof. So, I asked for proof. You gave that, to an extent. It didn't change my opinion, though, and I never said that it would. Nowhere did I say I was ignoring them, but I just believe the stats can be useful. I gave my example of GWG above.

so it does not worry you at all that all these guys talk about gwg as being a dead stat, and you still like it. thats fine, but if these guys who are smarter then us say its worthless, shouldn't you be looking at other stats? and if you are, why not offer the opinions on them? if you think stats are useful, why are you not menioning all the advanced ones on ohl propect stats that show our team isn't great.

How many rookies have 0.3pts/game? It doesn't matter if they're 98s or 01s, they're rookies.

the ohl doesnt consider him a rookie, he is not eligible for any rookie of the year awards, therefore i dont either. hes a 99, with 2 more years of eligibility, who statistically is probably in the bottom half of his age group in the league. in baseball they use war to judge value, could a basic player replace his production. he is below that for a 99. again, great that hes made it this year, not his fault, but lets not jump up and down in about a replacement level 99, its sad that this is one of our top success stories this year if we are jumping up and down over it.

 

[hockeylegend11]

youve often defended gwg, not once said that the lack of points was an issue, i assumed that that was how your felt. if it is not, you shouldnt defend it so much.




so it does not worry you at all that all these guys talk about gwg as being a dead stat, and you still like it. thats fine, but if these guys who are smarter then us say its worthless, shouldn't you be looking at other stats? and if you are, why not offer the opinions on them? if you think stats are useful, why are you not menioning all the advanced ones on ohl propect stats that show our team isn't great.



the ohl doesnt consider him a rookie, he is not eligible for any rookie of the year awards, therefore i dont either. hes a 99, with 2 more years of eligibility, who statistically is probably in the bottom half of his age group in the league. in baseball they use war to judge value, could a basic player replace his production. he is below that for a 99. again, great that hes made it this year, not his fault, but lets not jump up and down in about a replacement level 99, its sad that this is one of our top success stories this year if we are jumping up and down over it.

Nothing wrong with feel good stories, can't help that all u want to see are negatives.The fact that Sirman was a 14th round pick and is playing regular minutes with success in many areas is refreshing and a nice message to those.
that it doesn't matter where you were drafted it's what u do with it.
<mod>

 

[OHLTG]

youve often defended gwg, not once said that the lack of points was an issue, i assumed that that was how your felt. if it is not, you shouldnt defend it so much.

I've defended GWG over the last 12-hrs when it was brought up. I rarely think about it, let alone bring it up, otherwise.

so it does not worry you at all that all these guys talk about gwg as being a dead stat, and you still like it. thats fine, but if these guys who are smarter then us say its worthless, shouldn't you be looking at other stats? and if you are, why not offer the opinions on them? if you think stats are useful, why are you not menioning all the advanced ones on ohl propect stats that show our team isn't great.

You mentioned two guys (which I gave kudos for, too). So, because they bring it up and apparently it's a "dead stat" (which I really don't believe), I'm not allowed to think it's valuable? Does that really make sense? Where did I say our team is great? Man, I say GWG and plus-minus are useful and... I don't know what all of this is. Strange.

the ohl doesnt consider him a rookie, he is not eligible for any rookie of the year awards, therefore i dont either. hes a 99, with 2 more years of eligibility, who statistically is probably in the bottom half of his age group in the league. in baseball they use war to judge value, could a basic player replace his production. he is below that for a 99. again, great that hes made it this year, not his fault, but lets not jump up and down in about a replacement level 99, its sad that this is one of our top success stories this year if we are jumping up and down over it.

Did he play in the OHL last year? No. He's a rookie. If you'd rather call him a first-year, that's fine, too. Doesn't change the reality. Noobdy is jumping up-and-down about this. He's doing well both with PK and some offence, and that's a good thing. I know, people are still upset that we don't have a roster full of 00s and 01s. Or am I way off base? (I don't see any other reason for going after Sirman like this)

 

[OHL4Life]

Nothing wrong with feel good stories, can't help that all u want to see are negatives.The fact that Sirman was a 14th round pick and is playing regular minutes with success in many areas is refreshing and a nice message to those.
that it doesn't matter where you were drafted it's what u do with it.

im simply asking for a more well rounded analysis, not a GWG are good this year, therefore our rookies are doing well. that’s just cherry picking