Common misconceptions in the hockey world

[Filthy Dangles]

That guys like Jonathan Toews are more valuable than Connor McDavid because of his defensive play.

From 07-08 season when he came up, to the 2013-2014 season he scored 440 points in 484 games good for a .91 PPG. This is what we call Toew's prime

Sure, that's not close to Crosby/McDavid/Ovechkin production but it's still damn good and he was as reliable a center iceman in the game. You probably weren't gonna score as the other team when he was out there.

 

[LamorielloAndSon]

That Barzal is bad in the defensive zone

his transition game Is the best I've ever seen on the islanders

 

[grieves]

Once again this can all be debunked. Say Ovechkin scores 50 but only has 25 assists. McDavid scores 30 but has 50 assists. Ovechkin was a direct result of a goal 75 times, McDavid was a direct result 80 times. Simple logic tells you = goals and assists are equally important.
You're argument of without the goal, you don't get an assist is silly. There is an easy counter argument to that. Most of the time, without the assist, there is no chance at a goal. This article you linked is mostly this guys opinion. The only facts he gives is that a tie in the scoring race goes to most goals and the Rocket trophy. The whole purpose of hockey is to score more goals than the other team. So once again, think of it logically. If you are the direct result of 80 goals versus someone who is a direct result of 75 goals, the 80 wins. Doesn't matter how many goals or assists each has.

Wait, which of the three articles are you referring to?

Can you show me one legitimate analysis where goals are equal to assists? You talk about logic but provide only extremely loose narratives with not much meat on the bones if you go at all deeper.

You can just tell by those stats that they were the direct result of those goals in question? And how can an assist be a direct result? Just think of the word assist. It is assisting a goal. By the very definition it is lower in the hierarchy.

The idea is that on average the value ratio is 1 : 0,54 : 0,19.

And it makes sense. Why not calculate third assists or fourth assists? Are those also going to be as valuable as goals? See the problem? Even with the most awesome pass, you still need a bunch of work from the goal-scorer, be it positioning or awareness or shot quality etc. But you don't necessarily even need an assist.

 

[Beebop22]

Wait, which of the three articles are you referring to?

Can you show me one legitimate analysis where goals are equal to assists? You talk about logic but provide only extremely loose narratives with not much meat on the bones if you go at all deeper.

You can just tell by those stats that they were the direct result of those goals in question? And how can an assist be a direct result? Just think of the word assist. It is assisting a goal. By the very definition it is lower in the hierarchy.

The idea is that on average the value ratio is 1 : 0,54 : 0,19.

And it makes sense. Why not calculate third assists or fourth assists? Are those also going to be as valuable as goals? See the problem? Even with the most awesome pass, you still need a bunch of work from the goal-scorer, be it positioning or awareness or shot quality etc. But you don't necessarily even need an assist.

I wasn't aware there were three articles. I clicked on the link provided and it took me to a TSN article. I'm on mobile so maybe that's why I'm not seeing the other two?
I think you and I are looking at this from completely different angles. I believe that not every goal, assist, second assist are equal. But in the law of averages they are. It's easier to just give everything one point instead of breaking down who was the most important on every goal. Points are really important in determining how good a player is. If we want to go deeper, then yes, 3rd/4th assists are sometimes more important to the goal than the goal/1st-2nd assists. I agree that without the goal, there is no assists. But this doesn't in anyway prove that goals are worth more than assists. Would Ovechkin be as lethal on the powerplay without Backstrom or Kuznetsov? It's sad that playmakers, sometimes, don't get the praise they deserve. (Backstrom, Oates(until the HOF induction), etc)

 

[grieves]

I wasn't aware there were three articles. I clicked on the link provided and it took me to a TSN article. I'm on mobile so maybe that's why I'm not seeing the other two?
I think you and I are looking at this from completely different angles. I believe that not every goal, assist, second assist are equal. But in the law of averages they are. It's easier to just give everything one point instead of breaking down who was the most important on every goal. Points are really important in determining how good a player is. If we want to go deeper, then yes, 3rd/4th assists are sometimes more important to the goal than the goal/1st-2nd assists. I agree that without the goal, there is no assists. But this doesn't in anyway prove that goals are worth more than assists. Would Ovechkin be as lethal on the powerplay without Backstrom or Kuznetsov? It's sad that playmakers, sometimes, don't get the praise they deserve. (Backstrom, Oates(until the HOF induction), etc)

But people have actually calculated this. I don't think you can just arbitrarily create a formula where everything is equal just because that is an easy thing to do. That is not the reality of the situation.

I think it is wrong to say that third or fourth assists can be more important than the goal. It just doesn't compute.

Every team generates scoring chances all the time and third or fourth assist would be participation points at most. This is also why you have people arguing whether or not second assists should be counted at all.

 

[King Mapes]

That Toews was the best player in the league at one time. I remember the Sid vs Toews debate and give me Sid every time. Toews was never better.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Question is, what do you understand under the phrase: "an individual can carry a team to a cup".

All season? All playoff? Or final serie? Or one crucial game?

Ok, first option is very unlikely. Second more possible, but still not very realistic. Now we came to one serie and one game (7th game). What do you think? Can an individual carry his team to the Cup?

Here is the definition for "carry" that applies:

to be chiefly or solely responsible for the success, effectiveness, or continuation of

• a player capable of carrying a team

• Her performance carried the play.

Chiefly, meaning, "mainly" or "mostly."

Anyway, the average game requires 3 goals to win in today's NHL, so a player would have to have a major hand in 3 points per game as a bare minimum, and even then they would only be carrying the offense and not defense, and therefore NOT carrying the team.

To carry the team they would have to have 3-4 primary points per game (not BS secondary assists), preferably all unassisted goals, and they would have to dominate defensively (so much so that the other 5 guys - including the goalie - barely mattered) for a majority of the game.

At the very least, 51% of all contributions - offensively and defensively - would have to come from one person.

That is an impossibly high bar, not set by me mind you, but by the definitions of the word.

 

[Merchant]

I agree that the Penguins are not the only team to ever tank, but they definitely tanked and did it twice. Regarding tank #2...I don't know the numbers to say whether increased fan support would have affected the franchise's financial viability -- I suspect not -- but there were plenty of distasteful aspects about the way that era went down. If nothing else, the optics were bad -- for example, Lemieux crying poor then paying himself a disproportionately high salary while selling off every useful player from the team.

One thing that rubs people the wrong way about the Pens' second tank is not that it happened, but the heaps of praise bestowed on them at the end of the decade for building their team "the right way". I don't begrudge them the tank -- it's really just an ugly word for a true rebuild. But it doesn't take astute management to make 5 top 5 picks in the draft and win a 30-team lottery for a generational talent.

 

[Tryblot]

Prospects are more valuable than established NHL players.

Established NHL players are more valuable than high end prospects.

E.g. Dahlin thread.

 

[McDonald19]

Thinking that because the league is shifting towards more skilled players rather than pests/enforcers means that the league is becoming "*****fied" or "softer."

No I think that one is true. Hitting is way down, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with 4th line fighters.

 

[ScaredStreit]

The awards finalists are "nominees".

 

[bigd]

That players really like the fans.

 

[King Mapes]

The awards finalists are "nominees".

They advertise it as such but in reality it is just the top 3 in voting.

 

[Silky mitts]

That goalies are the most important position, that you want to have the highest paid goalie, that team x just ran into a hot goalie

 

[Filthy Dangles]

That Crosby is on McJesus level.

Not sure if sarcasm, and I dislike Sid and the Penguins very much but if anything, you have to reverse the names here.

 

[Name Nameless]

Wait, which of the three articles are you referring to?

Can you show me one legitimate analysis where goals are equal to assists? You talk about logic but provide only extremely loose narratives with not much meat on the bones if you go at all deeper.

You can just tell by those stats that they were the direct result of those goals in question? And how can an assist be a direct result? Just think of the word assist. It is assisting a goal. By the very definition it is lower in the hierarchy.

The idea is that on average the value ratio is 1 : 0,54 : 0,19.

And it makes sense. Why not calculate third assists or fourth assists? Are those also going to be as valuable as goals? See the problem? Even with the most awesome pass, you still need a bunch of work from the goal-scorer, be it positioning or awareness or shot quality etc. But you don't necessarily even need an assist.

The articles seems circular in their proofs to me.

They go, it's more assists than goals, we divide the number by each other, and have prooved the goals are more valuable. This seems to be the thinking to me. It looks like hokus-pokus.

Somewhat unrelated, but what about the guy who sets up his team-mates, and they miss on given goals?

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Actually the league is getting softer. Rule changes have done that. What was once a legal hit is now illegal.

The only changes I can think of, correct me if I'm wrong, were the ones made around 2011 or 2013 or so that changed the rules about head contact being a penalty. That's preventing concussions and brain damage, so I'm full in support of that change. Is that what you're referring to?

But it is becoming softer. Can you imagine Scott Stevens playing in today’s NHL? He would spend 75% of the year serving suspensions.

Scott Stevens played within the rules for the most part (barring ending Lindros' life, hitting Kariya half a second late, and a smattering of others) of the 90s NHL. An era known for clutching and grabbing and generally the least entertaining NHL hockey that has ever been played, in my opinion. Just because he toed the line doesn't mean he'd be serving almost the entire season. If he played in the modern day NHL, he would be a Dion Phaneuf type.

No I think that one is true. Hitting is way down, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with 4th line fighters.

Hitting numbers ranks up there with the most deceptive stat. Teams that outhit and outblock shots are usually the ones hemmed into their defensive zone. Don't have the numbers in front of me comparing hits yearly, but the clutch and grab era of the 90s and early 2000s is what a lot of people compare the modern numbers to. As I said above, clutching, grabbing, hooking, slashing, and everything else that was rampant then didn't make for good hockey to watch, in my opinion. Here's an article that doesn't do the best job of explaining it, but does it well enough. Physical play and hits: Why 'hits' is the worst statistic in hockey

 

[Intact]

"SHOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!" - the crowd

 

[Filthy Dangles]

"SHOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!" - the crowd

Good one. I hate being @ at a game and hearing mindless fans scream 'shoot the puck!' as if teams don't take away shooting lanes and block shots.

 

[Rick Kehoe]

I agree that the Penguins are not the only team to ever tank, but they definitely tanked and did it twice. Regarding tank #2...I don't know the numbers to say whether increased fan support would have affected the franchise's financial viability -- I suspect not -- but there were plenty of distasteful aspects about the way that era went down. If nothing else, the optics were bad -- for example, Lemieux crying poor then paying himself a disproportionately high salary while selling off every useful player from the team.

One thing that rubs people the wrong way about the Pens' second tank is not that it happened, but the heaps of praise bestowed on them at the end of the decade for building their team "the right way". I don't begrudge them the tank -- it's really just an ugly word for a true rebuild. But it doesn't take astute management to make 5 top 5 picks in the draft and win a 30-team lottery for a generational talent.

The Penguins had every right to rebuild after the mismanagement of the franchise during the Howard Baldwin era. And yes, Mario(and later, Ron Burkle) do deserve a ton of praise for building a three time Cup winner. It takes much more than high draft choices to build a great organization, and Lemieux made sure the AHL affiliate was upgraded. If I'm not mistaken, it was under Mario's watch when Pittsburgh bought the WBS Pens. Pittsburgh will continue to contend under this ownership group for years to come.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

The one that got me before was all of the Andrew Ladd hype in Winnipeg when the Jets came back... he's a very good hockey player, one of our better players at that time, but he isn't a superstar!

Byfuglien was the only player deserving of the hype at the time.

 

[grieves]

The articles seems circular in their proofs to me.

They go, it's more assists than goals, we divide the number by each other, and have prooved the goals are more valuable. This seems to be the thinking to me. It looks like hokus-pokus.

Somewhat unrelated, but what about the guy who sets up his team-mates, and they miss on given goals?

At least the last article has a clear methodology so I don't know what to say if you still after reading that think the value ratio is 1:1:1. It does not make a lick of sense.

If you have some legitimate calculations or theories I'm always open to changing my mind. However, if you think all points are equal, I'm quite confident in saying that you are the one in hokus-pokus land so to speak .

 

[OkimLom]

For an individual player?

I like it as maybe a line/squad stat, but you’d need to consistently keep track of who’s on the ice with who how often.

I think context is important.

If someone has about 80ish points, but his +/- is a -10, I would consider him pretty bad at defense. Not necessarily if he's a bad player, just defense might not be his strong suit.

If someone has 80 points, but his +/- is in the +40 range, I would consider him pretty good at defense.

But for me, that's as far as +/- goes for me.

 

[beoser]

Misconceptions about the Penguins:
1) Penguins are the only franchise to tank. Caps, Blackhawks, Oilers, Tampa, and others all tanked in the last 20 years. Unlike those teams, the Pens did it due to bankruptcy. No one willingly gives away Jagr, Straka, Kovalev, Lang in their prime.
2) Crosby is a whiner. Not since 2010.
3) Pittsburgh is small market. While yes it's smaller than most American NHL markets, Pittsburgh is bigger than Edmonton and Winnipeg COMBINED. It is also just barely smaller than Buffalo and Raleigh COMBINED.

Don’t forget Leafs tanked for Matthews

 

[olli]

That Barzal is bad in the defensive zone

his transition game Is the best I've ever seen on the islanders

Don't know how good Barzal is defensively. But I do know being good in transition doesn't always go hand in hand with being good defensively.