Salary Cap: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster building / proposal thread Part V

[Fletch]

3 times:

52 in 06-07
44 in 08-09
48 in 09-10

And the per 82 games statistic is important because it gives you an equal point of comparison with other players. Stempniak is a classic tweener. High end productivity for a 3rd liner, low end for a 2nd liner.

ugh, sorry - without looking back, I assume I wasn't adding the points during years in which he was traded and there was not a total for that year for the two teams for which he played. I don't mind the stat, although sometimes I only care about what a guy produces. If he scores 35 points a season in 60 games, consistently, I'm calling him a 35 point scorer even though it extrapolates to more. I sometimes will look at it as, what is he good for this season and look more to absolute numbers and consistency as opposed to extrapolations. I may extrapolate during early years, short stints, etc. Stop doing so for guys in the league 5,7, 10 years.

 

[silverfish]

Can you point out examples of this? I'm serious, I have no idea what you are reading or seeing.

You could be right about Lindberg for all I know, I think he has a future in the NHL as a 3C with heavy defensive duties.

And again, Hayes being a center at the NHL level really just means "hey, another center!", I don't see how you can make the connection that they view Hayes a center, therefore they see Miller as a winger.

Haven't read anything specific to that. It's just what I see when I watch Miller play - and the coaches hesitance to use him at center, which was a position of strength for the Rangers last year so it's given that it would've been tough for him to break through there.

As stated, I'm very willing and eager to see where JT lines up for us at training camp.

 

[Tawnos]

ugh, sorry - without looking back, I assume I wasn't adding the points during years in which he was traded and there was not a total for that year for the two teams for which he played. I don't mind the stat, although sometimes I only care about what a guy produces. If he scores 35 points a season in 60 games, consistently, I'm calling him a 35 point scorer even though it extrapolates to more. I sometimes will look at it as, what is he good for this season and look more to absolute numbers and consistency as opposed to extrapolations. I may extrapolate during early years, short stints, etc. Stop doing so for guys in the league 5,7, 10 years.

Stemps numbers remain about the same when you do just the last 5 years or 3 years. Like a lot of players in his situation, I think the variation in his numbers is understandable. Some years, he clicks well enough with better players to put up better numbers. Other years, he doesn't and his numbers show it.

 

[AHB*]

ugh, sorry - without looking back, I assume I wasn't adding the points during years in which he was traded and there was not a total for that year for the two teams for which he played. I don't mind the stat, although sometimes I only care about what a guy produces. If he scores 35 points a season in 60 games, consistently, I'm calling him a 35 point scorer even though it extrapolates to more. I sometimes will look at it as, what is he good for this season and look more to absolute numbers and consistency as opposed to extrapolations. I may extrapolate during early years, short stints, etc. Stop doing so for guys in the league 5,7, 10 years.

So you won't use it because it proves your point?

Fact is, PPG is far more relevant then general points. In 11-12 Crosby had 37 points in 22 games... what horrible production he was that year.

 

[Zil]

So you won't use it because it proves your point?

Fact is, PPG is far more relevant then general points. In 11-12 Crosby had 37 points in 22 games... what horrible production he was that year.

Yeah, but if you look at his points/60 production you'll see that his relatively high raw point totals have come from getting extremely high minutes on bad teams. He's 202nd in the league at even strength scoring, which puts him around guys like Setoguchi, Goc, and what's left of Mike Richards' offense.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...rs&minutes=750&disp=1&sort=HARTp&sortdir=DESC

 

[Fletch]

So you won't use it because it proves your point?

Fact is, PPG is far more relevant then general points. In 11-12 Crosby had 37 points in 22 games... what horrible production he was that year.

I wouldn't say it's more relevant than absolute points. Crosby's PPG was nice in that season but the objective is to help your team. What help is he if he's playing in only 1/4 of a team's games? And in many cases (not Crosby's) the extrapolation doesn't work because it never takes into considerations streakiness. It's hard to say what the player would have actually done over 82 games because...he didn't play those 82 games. It can be useful at times, no doubt, but as with everything you need to look at the whole picture, and for me, I'd only use it if I'm comparing a couple players in similar situations with a history of some kind of consistency. Not really caring about the guy averaging a point per game but can't seem to get into more than 50 games as much as the guy who seems to play 75 or so games and is integral in his team winning, even if his points are only .75 PPG.

 

[AHB*]

Yeah, but if you look at his points/60 production you'll see that his relatively high raw point totals have come from getting extremely high minutes on bad teams. He's 202nd in the league at even strength scoring, which puts him around guys like Setoguchi, Goc, and what's left of Mike Richards' offense.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...rs&minutes=750&disp=1&sort=HARTp&sortdir=DESC

Which I think is what we should all expect. He wasn't brought in to be a second liner, he was brought here to replace one of Boyle/Pouliot, which he can certainly do (and potentially do it to a higher degree).

He's a 30-40 point player who can do a lot of small things.

 

[Championship*]

Gordie Clarke has said from Jump Street that he see's Miller as a center

 

[AHB*]

I wouldn't say it's more relevant than absolute points. Crosby's PPG was nice in that season but the objective is to help your team. What help is he if he's playing in only 1/4 of a team's games? And in many cases (not Crosby's) the extrapolation doesn't work because it never takes into considerations streakiness. It's hard to say what the player would have actually done over 82 games because...he didn't play those 82 games. It can be useful at times, no doubt, but as with everything you need to look at the whole picture, and for me, I'd only use it if I'm comparing a couple players in similar situations with a history of some kind of consistency. Not really caring about the guy averaging a point per game but can't seem to get into more than 50 games as much as the guy who seems to play 75 or so games and is integral in his team winning, even if his points are only .75 PPG.

Of course it is more relevant. It's referring to production on the ice. If he's only giving 30 points a year but is doing it in 40 games that's completely different then doing it over the course of 70 games.

If you want to discuss injury history, that's completely fine, but that's also a different topic. Stempniak has been fairly consistent over the course of his career when it comes to goal/point totals (bar a few outliers) from that, you can gather a general sense of the kind of production he will provide, points-wise.

To argue otherwise is just pure minutia.

When Gaborik had those bunch of years that he missed games with injury did people not consider him elite, absolutely not. They just called him out for being injury prone, but extremely productive when he's on the ice.

Stempniak surely isn't at the level of Gaborik, but it's similar scenarios.

And if you want to play this 30 point semantics card and not pro-rate it, then technically to get a true indicator, you would have to take into accuont his replacement for the games he misses, which would still come out to about 40-50 points per years due to the fact that Stempniak is missing those games and allowing someone else to play and put up points.

It's not as if him being out of the lineup is making the Rangers or any team for that matter play a man down.

 

[bernmeister]

Can you point out examples of this? I'm serious, I have no idea what you are reading or seeing.

You could be right about Lindberg for all I know, I think he has a future in the NHL as a 3C with heavy defensive duties.

And again, Hayes being a center at the NHL level really just means "hey, another center!", I don't see how you can make the connection that they view Hayes a center, therefore they see Miller as a winger.

Exactly, with one important nuance. Each of our top guys offers 1 special thing.

Hayes brings the reach of height and the power of strength.

Miller brings generally good speed and strength, nice energy.

Lindberg [faceoffs] has a nice skill set also, and would be competing for 4th C at min if we were not backed up with the vets (Stepan [very high IQ] and Brassard [very smooth]).

Lombardi [speed] remains to be seen as to what he offers now.

 

[bernmeister]

Gordie Clarke has said from Jump Street that he see's Miller as a center

So Rangerboy and many others (including yours truly) were not wrong!

 

[Fletch]

Of course it is more relevant. It's referring to production on the ice. If he's only giving 30 points a year but is doing it in 40 games that's completely different then doing it over the course of 70 games.

If you want to discuss injury history, that's completely fine, but that's also a different topic. Stempniak has been fairly consistent over the course of his career when it comes to goal/point totals (bar a few outliers) from that, you can gather a general sense of the kind of production he will provide, points-wise.

To argue otherwise is just pure minutia.

When Gaborik had those bunch of years that he missed games with injury did people not consider him elite, absolutely not. They just called him out for being injury prone, but extremely productive when he's on the ice.

Stempniak surely isn't at the level of Gaborik, but it's similar scenarios.

And if you want to play this 30 point semantics card and not pro-rate it, then technically to get a true indicator, you would have to take into accuont his replacement for the games he misses, which would still come out to about 40-50 points per years due to the fact that Stempniak is missing those games and allowing someone else to play and put up points.

It's not as if him being out of the lineup is making the Rangers or any team for that matter play a man down.

think we're talking about different things a bit. I don't disagree with extrapolating certain things. But often I just talk about absolute terms as opposed to what could have been done had he played an entire season. If I'm comparing a player who averages 82 games played and 50 points to a player who plays 50 games and averages 50 points, I'm going to say the latter is more prolific. So, yes, I extrapolated. But I may say the other guy is more useful to his team because he provided his team with as many points and perhaps brought other positive attributes while playing a full season. I understand the extrapolation and how it's used. In some cases, though, it just doesn't matter to me. Awards aren't given for best extrapolation. The season doesn't end in November with the rest of the wins and losses extrapolated. You're not suggesting, I'm just throwing it out why I use it sparingly. Similar to points per 60. Sometimes if you give the guy the extra minutes, which may be against tougher competition, the extrapolation doesn't work. OK, want to compare two similar players, fine. Can't even remember why I knocked extrapolating now.

 

[Tawnos]

think we're talking about different things a bit. I don't disagree with extrapolating certain things. But often I just talk about absolute terms as opposed to what could have been done had he played an entire season. If I'm comparing a player who averages 82 games played and 50 points to a player who plays 50 games and averages 50 points, I'm going to say the latter is more prolific. So, yes, I extrapolated. But I may say the other guy is more useful to his team because he provided his team with as many points and perhaps brought other positive attributes while playing a full season. I understand the extrapolation and how it's used. In some cases, though, it just doesn't matter to me. Awards aren't given for best extrapolation. The season doesn't end in November with the rest of the wins and losses extrapolated. You're not suggesting, I'm just throwing it out why I use it sparingly. Similar to points per 60. Sometimes if you give the guy the extra minutes, which may be against tougher competition, the extrapolation doesn't work. OK, want to compare two similar players, fine. Can't even remember why I knocked extrapolating now.

Fletch, this isn't an extrapolation. On average, every 82 games he produces a certain number of points. I'm not talking about pro-rating, which is only effective when you're talking about a player's performance in a particular season. The extrapolation would be if we were to say, "had Stemp played every possible game in every season of his career, he would have X number of points." The number of games is somewhat arbitrary and we could easily say 100 games. 82 just happens to be the length of a season, so that makes it a relatable number. It's simply a way of putting everyone on the same standard of measurement. You could also say that, on average, the same player only plays 74 games per year. In that regard, it's easy to say that Stempniak is essentially a 39 point player who misses around 8 games per year.

That's fine. But how exactly does that help when comparing his effectiveness with, say, Benoit Pouliot? For the sake of ease of doing the math, let's remove the lockout year.

Is it easier to acknowledge that Pouliot scores 23 points per year but only plays 56 games while Stempniak scores 39 points per year and plays 74 games?

or

Is it easier to acknowledge that Pouliot scores 34 points per 82 while Stempniak scores 43?

 

[Zil]

Which I think is what we should all expect. He wasn't brought in to be a second liner, he was brought here to replace one of Boyle/Pouliot, which he can certainly do (and potentially do it to a higher degree).

He's a 30-40 point player who can do a lot of small things.

In his likely bottom six role, he'll probably be closer to 30 than 40. It's a problem if Miller can't at least match that kind of role player production.

Is it easier to acknowledge that Pouliot scores 23 points per year but only plays 56 games while Stempniak scores 39 points per year and plays 74 games?

or

Is it easier to acknowledge that Pouliot scores 34 points per 82 while Stempniak scores 43?

It's easier to look at points/60 and realize that Pouliot (1.75) is a more productive player than Stempniak (1.30) given the same amount of ice time.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...rs&minutes=750&disp=1&sort=HARTp&sortdir=DESC

 

[Fletch]

In his likely bottom six role, he'll probably be closer to 30 than 40. It's a problem if Miller can't at least match that kind of role player production.

that was pretty much what I was getting out, in a very convoluted and not well thought-out way.

 

[Tawnos]

In his likely bottom six role, he'll probably be closer to 30 than 40. It's a problem if Miller can't at least match that kind of role player production.

Depending on how they shake out the roster, I wouldn't be surprised if Stempniak was the first player promoted to play in the top 6 on a temporary basis in the event of an injury to a winger. I'm expecting 35 points out of him, at least.

5 centers scored 30 points as a rookie last year. I don't disagree that we need our 3C to score at least that much, but it's somewhat of a tall order for Miller. We might have to swallow a less effective 3rd line for a while this season to benefit the team in the long run.

 

[Fletch]

Fletch, this isn't an extrapolation. On average, every 82 games he produces a certain number of points. I'm not talking about pro-rating, which is only effective when you're talking about a player's performance in a particular season. The extrapolation would be if we were to say, "had Stemp played every possible game in every season of his career, he would have X number of points." The number of games is somewhat arbitrary and we could easily say 100 games. 82 just happens to be the length of a season, so that makes it a relatable number. It's simply a way of putting everyone on the same standard of measurement. You could also say that, on average, the same player only plays 74 games per year. In that regard, it's easy to say that Stempniak is essentially a 39 point player who misses around 8 games per year.

That's fine. But how exactly does that help when comparing his effectiveness with, say, Benoit Pouliot? For the sake of ease of doing the math, let's remove the lockout year.

Is it easier to acknowledge that Pouliot scores 23 points per year but only plays 56 games while Stempniak scores 39 points per year and plays 74 games?

or

Is it easier to acknowledge that Pouliot scores 34 points per 82 while Stempniak scores 43?

when comparing two similar players, it's easier that way if you want to say who's a more productive player. However, if you ask me how many points I think Stempniak would put up this season I'm probably going to look more towards his actual numbers and not his numbers on a per 82 game basis as my starting point. As I stated, in many cases I don't think it's helpful.

 

[Fletch]

Depending on how they shake out the roster, I wouldn't be surprised if Stempniak was the first player promoted to play in the top 6 on a temporary basis in the event of an injury to a winger. I'm expecting 35 points out of him, at least.

5 centers scored 30 points as a rookie last year. I don't disagree that we need our 3C to score at least that much, but it's somewhat of a tall order for Miller. We might have to swallow a less effective 3rd line for a while this season to benefit the team in the long run.

Miller is a rookie, but with 50+ NHL games under his belt and 10 points. 30 points may not be an unreasonable expectation from him in terms of saying his progressing nicely. If he's scoring only 20 points, will he even stay a season at the NHL level? Think that's why less than 30 points becomes disappointing.

 

[Zil]

Depending on how they shake out the roster, I wouldn't be surprised if Stempniak was the first player promoted to play in the top 6 on a temporary basis in the event of an injury to a winger. I'm expecting 35 points out of him, at least.

5 centers scored 30 points as a rookie last year. I don't disagree that we need our 3C to score at least that much, but it's somewhat of a tall order for Miller. We might have to swallow a less effective 3rd line for a while this season to benefit the team in the long run.

This team is expecting to contend and Miller doesn't even qualify for Calder Trophy consideration any more. At JT's age, Brandon Dubinsky went from posting 43 points in 71 Hartford games to 40 points in 82 NHL games. Miller posted 43 points in 41 AHL games last year so he should be expected to make a pretty sizable leap this season.

 

[Tawnos]

It's easier to look at points/60 and realize that Pouliot (1.75) is a more productive player than Stempniak (1.30) given the same amount of ice time.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...rs&minutes=750&disp=1&sort=HARTp&sortdir=DESC

When you break it down into that size of a unit (minutes, rather than games), the statistic starts to lose cohesion, as far as I'm concerned. The quality of the minutes becomes vastly more important. Yeah, Pouliot is a more productive player when you even out the minutes, but Stempniak has been playing a top-6 role, and therefore facing better defensive coverage, for more of his career. Is that because he's a solid top-6 player? Nah, I don't think so. I think it's because he's been on some bad teams. My feeling is that, in a lesser role, it's absolutely possible to have a higher pts/60 but attain a lower pts/game.

 

[Tawnos]

when comparing two similar players, it's easier that way if you want to say who's a more productive player. However, if you ask me how many points I think Stempniak would put up this season I'm probably going to look more towards his actual numbers and not his numbers on a per 82 game basis as my starting point. As I stated, in many cases I don't think it's helpful.

I just don't see how it's helpful to go into the season assuming the player will do anything other than play 82 games.

 

[Tawnos]

This team is expecting to contend and Miller doesn't even qualify for Calder Trophy consideration any more. At JT's age, Brandon Dubinsky went from posting 43 points in 71 Hartford games to 40 points in 82 NHL games. Miller posted 43 points in 41 AHL games last year so he should be expected to make a pretty sizable leap this season.

Oh I totally agree there. I was just saying that it might take some time for JT to find his game at the NHL level and it might lead to a decrease in his totals at the end of the year.

He also doesn't have a Jaromir Jagr not clicking with any of the team's other centers to inflate his point totals. Well, maybe he does. Who knows who MSL will click with.

 

[Zil]

When you break it down into that size of a unit (minutes, rather than games), the statistic starts to lose cohesion, as far as I'm concerned.

It's actually doing the opposite. Points per game puts an arbitrary end point on what counts as a unit of production. Points/60 just looks at the entirety of your season's ice time and asks how productive you were. Also, the 0.45 gap in points/60 between Pouliot and Stempniak is the difference between Malkin and Logan Couture so it's not something that you can really explain away with matchups (obviously there's a wider gap between Malkin and Couture than Pouliot and Stempniak when you factor in stuff like powerplay production and off ice/on ice team scoring rates).

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Which I think is what we should all expect. He wasn't brought in to be a second liner, he was brought here to replace one of Boyle/Pouliot, which he can certainly do (and potentially do it to a higher degree).

He's a 30-40 point player who can do a lot of small things.

I believe he PKs also which is key having lost Cally, Boyle, and Dorsett.

 

[Tawnos]

It's actually doing the opposite. Points per game puts an arbitrary end point on what counts as a unit of production. Points/60 just looks at the entirety of your season's ice time and asks how productive you were. Also, the 0.45 gap in points/60 between Pouliot and Stempniak is the difference between Malkin and Logan Couture so it's not something that you can really explain away with matchups (obviously there's a wider gap between Malkin and Couture than Pouliot and Stempniak when you factor in stuff like powerplay production and off ice/on ice team scoring rates).

You realize that they are essentially the same idea, right? Points/60m uses the "arbitrary" end point of a 60 minute game. It's one step removed from points per minute. Points/82g uses an "arbitrary" end point of 82 games and is one step removed from points per game. Both "arbitrary" end points are logical uses. You said it was doing the opposite, but completely failed to explain how you think that. For a player playing a role that's above his ability, the impact of competition is going to be significantly greater than on a player playing at his ability and facing equivalent competition. That's just simple common sense. It's why the idea of roles is such an important one.

Not that I buy into this stat completely and I'm not sure how you feel about it, but since it's based on Corsi... did you happen to look at Stempniak's QoC HARD over the last 5 years compared to Pouliot's? It's a significant difference. Hockeyanalysis is down at the moment, so I can't quote you numbers, but I looked earlier today.