MonyontheMoney
Registered User
- Apr 5, 2015
- 4,429
- 520
Bennett is also generally playing against 3rd or 4th lines, no?
Nice article by Travis Yost (who I'm not generally a huge fan of) on Gio and Dougie.
http://www.tsn.ca/talent/hamilton-and-giordano-are-the-best-pairing-in-hockey-1.704373
Yost is my favorite writer. Doesn't waste any time getting to the point while doing a great job explaining the context.
It's been a very good pairing, but the best in hockey? No, that is likely not the case. Yost always has been and always will be a ****ing hack that bases his opinions solely on fancy stats.
Nice article by Travis Yost (who I'm not generally a huge fan of) on Gio and Dougie.
http://www.tsn.ca/talent/hamilton-and-giordano-are-the-best-pairing-in-hockey-1.704373
It's been a very good pairing, but the best in hockey? No, that is likely not the case. Yost always has been and always will be a ****ing hack that bases his opinions solely on fancy stats.
How much of a red herring is the addition of Bartkowski or Stone to this team's success? (Full disclosure: sample size is limited)
Player | Off-ice scoring-chance% | On-Ice scoring-chance % | Off-ice expected goals % | On-Ice expected goals %
Bartkowski | 55.51 | 38.57 | 54.90 | 43.90
Stone | 49.94 | 52.43 | 52.86 | 50.74
Kulak | 46.72 | 51.50 | 46.95 | 49.99
It's a pretty big red herring because we are 2015 Sabres bad with him on the ice. Which was the year they tanked for Eichel/McDavid.
For Stone, it's not a red herring. We are actually better with him so far.
And Kulak was just here when the rest of the team sucked.
If we're gonna stick with Bartkowski, we need to get him a partner like Andersson. Otherwise we can't stick with him.
So Stone good, Bartkowski bad pretty much. Matches the eye test.
Not so much "Stone good" as "Stone mediocre", but yeah.
Not so much "Stone good" as "Stone mediocre", but yeah.
the corsi # are more relevant. They are better predictor of future goals even over a full season at the player level - dmen specifically. Stone ends up looking pretty bad, ~48 CF% SVZA with and ~54% without.
Well, mediocre would be a #3.5D, so for our #4D to be mediocre isn't a bad thing at all.
The rangers offered a bag of peanuts before the TDL. I don't think they like him that much.Shattenkirk will sign with the Rangers, if not the Caps.
I don't know, maybe? It's clearly a better predictor of how mgmt., fans and coaches view players.I would say the scoring chance numbers are useful as descriptors of past events, the corsi numbers are better predictors of future events.