Those are some good stats, but I think that could be more indicative of the fact that stats do not tell the whole story.
To me, the eye test will always take precedence over advanced stats, and perhaps this is where I differ from the JD Burke Army.
As a guy that watched the games, I saw a guy that was simply too slow for the NHL. After starting off inpressively, I think Archie’s lack of speed was evident.
Hence - management’s decision.
I know that you’re going to use the ‘appeal to authority’ argument against me, but here’s what I have to say in response to that:
IF Archibald is even half as good as you say he is.....or was......then he’ll go back to the American League and tear it up. I mean if he “magically” took such a quantum leap while he was here, he’ll surely go back to the American League and start tearing it up over there will he not? Like you said - he was on a 27 Point ES pace up here so lord only knows what his ES pace will be in the AHL.
IF Archie’s really that good, then a smart GM will (or already would have) low ball(ed) Benning for Archibald right? I mean do you REALLY think that Archie will go unnoticed by every single GM in the league if he was that effective?
And I know that you’re going to use the ‘Vegas’ example again to illustrate your thesis here, so I’ll leave you with this:
1) Did YOU predict that Vegas would be that good after Vegas assembled their roster last year?
2) Did JD Burke or any other “advanced stats” guru’s accurately predict the success of Vegas last year?
No. Absolutely no one predicted, or could have predicted, Vegas’ success last year and so for anyone to sit there on their high horse and claim that all GM’s in the league are idiots is extremely pretentious.
My eye test said he looked great, so that puts us at a stalemate. Which is kinda the thing with eye tests.
So thank goodness we have things called 'results' and 'evidence'. And those things strongly indicate that your eye test sucks.
And yes, this is another appeal to authority.
I thought Vegas' forwards would be good. I thought their defense would suck. I really don't see the point of the question.
Smart GM’s don’t just look at one year’s body of work. They take into account a player’s history, his age, and possible reasons as to why a player had an off year (in Roussel’s case, it likely had to do with his incompatibility under Hitchcock’s system).
Eddie Lack also had a year that was as good or better than Ryan Miller’s season in 2014-2015. How did that pan out by the way?
I'm glad you asked that. Even though Lack's career went through the worst-case scenario possible, trading him was still the wrong move. Markstrom was just as good as Miller right from the start of the next season, Miller's goaltending made zero difference to the team's fortunes, we would have received a higher return for Miller, and would have saved $5 million in cap space to improve the team elsewhere.
And you realize there are countless examples to the contrary, right? In our disappointing 05-06 season, two nobody prospects named Alex Burrows and Kevin Bieksa were called up and played pretty well but not outstandingly in the 2nd half. But showed something and were cheap, and I remember arguing against people who didn't want them on the roster for the next year. Imagine if we'd buried them behind a bunch of Jay Beagles instead of giving them a chance.
That’s the problem with the JD Burke crew on here. Everything is about reading spreadsheets and advanced statistics.
If you actually tell these guys to watch the bloody games and SEE FOR THEMSELVES that Archibald is too damned slow, they pull out their spreadsheets and read you the riot act. Add to that, they simply hate Benning. That’s why the JD Burke crew on here are also quick to attack any Benning UFA signing or any young player that Benning traded a pick to get.
It never dawns on these guys that the reason why guys like Archibald and Gaunce will be hard pressed to make the team next season, is because they simply aren’t good enough. Advanced Stats and Corsi be damned. Watch the bloody games!
You can't be f***ing serious here.
I watch pretty much every goddamn game. And I watched Archibald play damned effective hockey in tough minutes, being a beast winning board battles, finishing every check, showing (almost impossibly) chemistry with Sutter, and consistently starting shifts in our zone and finishing in theirs. I never use Corsi or that kind of stuff when evaluating players. I do use zone starts which are hugely important when putting performances in context. And I apologize if my using the newfangled 'points' stat confused you.
How many games did you watch last year?
Oh, and by the way, Darren Archibald isn't slow. He has a clunky first step (which isn't ideal) but is one of the fastest players on the team in a straight line. Look what a slug he is here :
The guys on the team who are actually slow are players like Granlund and Gagner. But your shitty broken eye test probably doesn't pick up on that.
