Cam Fowler would be your team's #? defenseman?

?


  • Total voters
    277

Morgs

#16 #34 #44 #88 #91
Jul 12, 2015
19,518
15,389
London, ON
Assuming for the sake of arguments that these "advanced stats" are not the Emperor's New Clothes, what about the data compilation, the differences from rink to rink, the human error aspect... ?

Sure there's always human error, but I take tens of thousands of minutes over one mans eyes (i dont care who it is) any day of the week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yackiberg8

Michel Beauchamp

Canadiens' fan since 1958
Mar 17, 2008
22,970
3,189
Laval, Qc
Sure there's always human error, but I take tens of thousands of minutes over one mans eyes (i dont care who it is) any day of the week.
To base oneself on these "advanced stats", you have to have blind faith that they are actually measuring what they pretend to be measuring.

That's the "Emperor's New Clothes" aspect.
 

Morgs

#16 #34 #44 #88 #91
Jul 12, 2015
19,518
15,389
London, ON
To base oneself on these "advanced stats", you have to have bkindfaith that they are actually measuring what they pretend to be measuring.

That's the "Emperor's New Clothes" aspect.

Literally having more shot attempts than the other team is a better predictor of future wins than goals for/against.

It's not perfect; nothing is, but I still believe these stats are a lot better to believe than any one persons eyes. Including my own, and I've trained myself to look for what these stats say.
 

Michel Beauchamp

Canadiens' fan since 1958
Mar 17, 2008
22,970
3,189
Laval, Qc
Literally having more shot attempts than the other team is a better predictor of future wins than goals for/against.

It's not perfect; nothing is, but I still believe these stats are a lot better to believe than any one persons eyes. Including my own, and I've trained myself to look for what these stats say.
Completely false.

Even having more scoring chances is not a better predictor if your players can't finish.

You've trained yourself, you say ?

Would you by any chance be a graduate of Dubas University or Eakins College ?
 

CanadienShark

Registered User
Dec 18, 2012
37,357
10,608
Vlasic has been terrible
You seem to have built quite a strong opinion on a lot of players from a lot of teams. How do you find the time to watch so much?

Seriously though, Vlasic has shown improvements. And he's been a head and shoulders better than Fowler for most of his career. That's why it's debatable.
 

Morgs

#16 #34 #44 #88 #91
Jul 12, 2015
19,518
15,389
London, ON
Completely false.

Even having more scoring chances is not a better predictor if your players can't finish.

You've trained yourself, you say ?

Would you by any chance be a graduate of Dubas University or Eakins College ?

Well math dictates differently, and even with low shooting quality players (Canes early this year), the team always regresses to the mean (Canes now).
 

The Moose is Loose

Registered User
Jun 28, 2017
10,344
9,287
St.Louis
You seem to have built quite a strong opinion on a lot of players from a lot of teams. How do you find the time to watch so much?

Seriously though, Vlasic has shown improvements. And he's been a head and shoulders better than Fowler for most of his career. That's why it's debatable.
Agreed on the career, but this year I think Fowler has pretty easily been better
 

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,162
13,178
2 or 3. Behind Lindholm and probably Manson (at least this season he is).
 

Anaheim4ever

Registered User
Jun 15, 2017
8,824
5,400
Sure explains how the Ducks look so much better under a guy that hasn't coached more than a pee wee team and have a winning record since firing the guy.

Maybe leave presumptions and analysis to the people that actually watch the team. You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
The way Perry & Kesler look like NHLers lately, its like Carlyle was a complete parasite on the team that finally got removed.
 

bambamcam4ever

107 and counting
Feb 16, 2012
14,301
6,344
Well math dictates differently, and even with low shooting quality players (Canes early this year), the team always regresses to the mean (Canes now).
Statistics isn't math. You are misrepresenting your position.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,515
46,231
Shot rates, xG?

Can't really quote them without Corsica, but it's pretty clear Gardiner & Muzzin have a much more positive effect on their team's shots/chances than Fowler does.

This year, but overall? His and Gardiner's various shot rates are similar last year.

I'd probably take Muzzin over Fowler, though.

Edit: I'd still hesitate to base *everything* on those various shot rates, etc. Take a guy like Pietrangelo. Would you argue Gardiner is a better player than him? Because many of his rates are better than Pietrangelo's this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColoradoCanes

Morgs

#16 #34 #44 #88 #91
Jul 12, 2015
19,518
15,389
London, ON
This year, but overall? His and Gardiner's various shot rates are similar last year.

I'd probably take Muzzin over Fowler, though.

Overall Gardiner and Fowler's rel.CF% are nowhere close.

Fowler has only been positive relative twice in his career (2016-17, 2017-18), where as Gardiner has never been negative, and his "worst season" was better than Fowler's best.
 

Yackiberg8

Registered User
Mar 11, 2016
2,777
1,666
Halifax
This year, but overall? His and Gardiner's various shot rates are similar last year.

I'd probably take Muzzin over Fowler, though.

Edit: I'd still hesitate to base *everything* on those various shot rates, etc. Take a guy like Pietrangelo. Would you argue Gardiner is a better player than him? Because many of his rates are better than Pietrangelo's this season.
Pietrangelo was terrible for a good chunk of this season.
 

RSPens

Registered User
May 25, 2015
1,888
939
#2 for the Pens.
I kind of disagree, I think he would be paired with Schultz on the 2nd pairing, so he would be top four, but I know Letang would still get the most ice time and therefore Dumo would still be #2. So technically Fowler would be a #3 or #4 with Schultz being the other guy.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,515
46,231
Pietrangelo was terrible for a good chunk of this season.

Right, but now you're talking about who has had the better season up to this point, not who is the overall better player. Which was my original point about the danger of focusing exclusively on these various shot metrics. They don't necessarily show who is better, period, but who is performing better during a given sample size or season.
 

Yackiberg8

Registered User
Mar 11, 2016
2,777
1,666
Halifax
Right, but now you're talking about who has had the better season up to this point, not who is the overall better player. Which was my original point about the danger of focusing exclusively on these various shot metrics. They don't necessarily show who is better, period, but who is performing better during a given sample size or season.
True but say someone is performing better than the other player for 3 or 4 seasons in a row then that is enough of a period to say one player is better than the other.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->