Do you consider playoff production a legitimate statistic?

[DAChampion]

A lot is made of the fact that Desharnais is an anemic playoff producer, whereas players like Bourque, Smith-Pelley, Briere, etc are amazing playoff players.

Do you think that these numbers suggest an authentic and meaningful player attribute, or just flukes from small sample size, etc.

There are structural differences. 5on5 matters more in the playoffs, and you can't run the score against crappy teams, the crappy teams are gone.

Click to read more...

 

[groovejuice]

I think playoff stats are valuable. Some players can legitimately crank up their game, and others simply are less effective. Obviously, the more playoff games we have to extrapolate, the more meaningful they are.

Like the old saw goes, some guys will get you there and others will keep you there.

 

[Goldthorpe]

A lot is made of the fact that Desharnais is an anemic playoff producer, whereas players like Bourque, Smith-Pelley, Briere, etc are amazing playoff players.

Do you think that these numbers suggest an authentic and meaningful player attribute, or just flukes from small sample size, etc.

There are structural differences. 5on5 matters more in the playoffs, and you can't run the score against crappy teams, the crappy teams are gone.

I think "being good in the playoff" is probably an authentic meaningful attribute, for the reasons you mentionned (it's a different season/game). On the other hand, I don't think the sample for a typical player is large enough to make good prediction regarding his playoff success. We wouldn't judge a player out of a dozen regular season games, and the same can be said about the playoffs.

 

[The Nightman]

Yes, Like it or not the game is changed once the playoffs begin and the second rule book comes out, this is an advantage to some and a disadvantage to others. There's also the players who can't seem to elevate their game and fade in the playoffs like Oshie and Backes for example.

I also believe you can't just label someone like DSP or Bourque as amazing playoff performers after they had just one single good post-season.

 

[Mrb1p]

A lot is made of the fact that Desharnais is an anemic playoff producer, whereas players like Bourque, Smith-Pelley, Briere, etc are amazing playoff players.

Do you think that these numbers suggest an authentic and meaningful player attribute, or just flukes from small sample size, etc.

There are structural differences. 5on5 matters more in the playoffs, and you can't run the score against crappy teams, the crappy teams are gone.

Fluke, but also the fact that there's less space and less powerplays (Historically, at least.).

I don't buy that a guy like Plekanec is "not good" in the playoffs. I don't buy that Desharnais is a different player than he is in the reg. season.. Can a player find another gear and give it all ? Surely. Subban is a prime example of that, there's clearly a difference between "big game" Subban and middle of the week against the Coyotes Subban. I don't believe it's just about playoffs though. Some players just have that ability.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

No, and I think you've had a lot to do to convince me about it through your posting history. The sample size is often 10 times smaller for a given season, it's just far likelier that those stats are non-predictive and one-game-at-a-time performances can greatly skew them.

That said, some coaches will lean on some players who are responding better more so maybe pts/TOI is something to look at?

 

[Nicko999]

With context, yes. Otherwise, no.

Fernando Pisano was the best player in the world during the spring of 2006. That doesn't mean he suddenly became a 1st line player.

If you compare two very similar players with the same regular season stats THEN you can draw conclusions.

For example, Derick Brassard and Tomas Plekanec both had 60 pts this season and both were the most productive center on their team.

Brassard had 16 pts in 19 playoff games, Plekanec had 4 pts in 12 games. In this case, yes you can say Brassard had a better season.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

I'm not quite sure why you feel 5 on 5 play is more important come playoff time.

2014-15 playoffs: 2.95 PP Opportunities per game(per team)
2014-15 season: 3.05 PP Opportunities per game(per team)
2013-14 playoffs: 3.59 PP Opportunities per game(per team)
2013-14 season: 3.27 PP Opportunities per game(per team)

Other than that, playoff statistics are very much important. It's just a fallacy to suggest X player should only be represented by one set of statistics. It's more data to use, not a means to alienate other data.

In my mind Bourque's solid playoff runs didn't erase he was a terrible player overall for the majority of the season. The same is also true in reverse, Pacioretty's lack of playoff dominance over his career hasn't made me feel he's expendable or whatever.

Of course, it illustrates a player's weaknesses vs certain teams, styles, etc...

 

[Nynja*]

One solid playoff run? No.
Multiple solid playoff runs? Yes.

On topic of Bourque, he's had three playoff runs. Twice with us, where he was a .81 PPG player...and once with Calgary back in 2009.

 

[Smokey Thompson]

Yes. This reminds me of the Getzlaf-Perry vs Toews-Kane. That poll on was way to close and should have been a land slide for the Hawks duo simply because of what they've done in the playoffs in recent years. Kane is the greatest playoff performer of his generation and more valuable than Perry, even if Perry is bigger and potentially a better regular season performer. Getzlaf is moe productive in the regular season than Toews, but I would never take him over Toews on my team.

 

[walsy37]

It's not just based upon the points (although of course that does add something to the discussion). It's about effort and ability. Pleks is a perfect example. They guy is so solid during the regular season but come playoff time, it is like he is a different player. Not just the point total, but his play seems to constantly take a dip. Why is that?

I think the answer lies with the fact that the game does change and is played differently. It is tighter, more intense, more taxing and, very importantly, more physical. Players that can get away with playing on the peripheral during the season are exposed during the playoffs. You need to have a physical element to your game during the playoffs that softer players just don't have. This is why Pleks and DD look poor (or even poorer) during the PO and why 3rd liners like Weisse, DSP, Bourque often come on strong during the PO.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

One solid playoff run? No.
Multiple solid playoff runs? Yes.

On topic of Bourque, he's had three playoff runs. Twice with us, where he was a .81 PPG player...and once with Calgary back in 2009.

Thing about Bourque is he's well rested come playoff time.

 

[Teufelsdreck]

A lot is made of the fact that Desharnais is an anemic playoff producer, whereas players like Bourque, Smith-Pelley, Briere, etc are amazing playoff players.

Do you think that these numbers suggest an authentic and meaningful player attribute, or just flukes from small sample size, etc.

There are structural differences. 5on5 matters more in the playoffs, and you can't run the score against crappy teams, the crappy teams are gone.

Ted Williams was undoubtedly one of the greatest hitters in baseball history but didn't shine in the World Series. whereas some anemic hitters had singular success. I see the latter as outliers. I wouldn't trade Williams but I'd certainly consider trading some .249 regular season hitter who hit .800 in a World Series.

 

[Ezpz]

Problem is Desharnais sucks in the regular season too.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Problem is Desharnais just sucks.

 

[Ezpz]

He's great in pre-season.

 

[DJ Breadman]

I think playoff stats are valuable. Some players can legitimately crank up their game, and others simply are less effective. Obviously, the more playoff games we have to extrapolate, the more meaningful they are.

Like the old saw goes, some guys will get you there and others will keep you there.

It's much easier to get there, so I'll take guys who keep me there, in other words yes playoff stats are valuable

 

[Lshap]

With context, yes. Otherwise, no.

Fernando Pisano was the best player in the world during the spring of 2006. That doesn't mean he suddenly became a 1st line player.

If you compare two very similar players with the same regular season stats THEN you can draw conclusions.

For example, Derick Brassard and Tomas Plekanec both had 60 pts this season and both were the most productive center on their team.

Brassard had 16 pts in 19 playoff games, Plekanec had 4 pts in 12 games. In this case, yes you can say Brassard had a better season.

What's interesting is that Brassard had 55 shots in 19 games with a 16.4 shooting%.

Plekanec had 37 shots in 12 games (3rd best on the Habs), but a dismal 2.7 shooting%. That's unbelievably bad.

Plekanec's total number of shots is very good. Even taking away the perimeter shots, he had a better than average number of chances. Include his shots that aren't represented because they missed the net and you have to wonder whether Plekanec was monumentally unlucky this playoffs -- the only other explanation is he forgot how to shoot in April and May. He fired plenty of rubber, but practically nothing went in.

For context, before this terrible playoffs he was 14-28-42 in 69 games. That's pretty solid production; hardly the numbers of a guy who doesn't show up.

 

[Team_Spirit]

Problem is Desharnais sucks in the regular season too.

 

[The Nightman]

Tumblr gifs are the worst.

 

[holyhabs]

There's a clear difference between players like Subban who step their game up during the playoffs and players like Plekanec who don't. Not saying Plekanec gets worse in playoffs but even if everything around him gets amped up a notch he has shown he doesn't have what it takes to take it to that next level so at best he remains regular season Plekanec.

 

[Forsead]

All things considered would you prefer Thornton or Getzlaf on your team ?

That's why playoffs stats are important.

 

[LastWordArmy]

A lot is made of the fact that Desharnais is an anemic playoff producer, whereas players like Bourque, Smith-Pelley, Briere, etc are amazing playoff players.

Do you think that these numbers suggest an authentic and meaningful player attribute, or just flukes from small sample size, etc.

There are structural differences. 5on5 matters more in the playoffs, and you can't run the score against crappy teams, the crappy teams are gone.

The only thing I'll say about playoff scoring is that PP scoring is usually down... less PPs, and teams game plan to stop the other team's PP more. So there is that.

When we look at 5v5 scoring though, its just a factor of small sample sizes, IMO. Even the "supposed" best playoff players like Claude Lemieux and Justin Williams have basically the same regular season PPG as playoff PPG in their career.

Here's a good site on it.

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/10/3/clutch-nhl-playoff-big-game-performers

 

[LyricalLyricist]

All things considered would you prefer Thornton or Getzlaf on your team ?

That's why playoffs stats are important.

Getzlaf is the better player in regular season too though(as of late due to Thornton being 35)

Despite the hate Thornton gets he still has 100 points in 132 GP in the playoffs.

I'd take a 30 year old Getzlaf or Thornton any day.

 

[Forsead]

Getzlaf is the better player in regular season too though(as of late due to Thornton being 35)

Despite the hate Thornton gets he still has 100 points in 132 GP in the playoffs.

I'd take a 30 year old Getzlaf or Thornton any day.

I agree, but the question is who would you take between a 30 years old Getzlaf or a 30 years old Thornton ? or even a 25 years old Getzlaf or a 25 years old Thornton ?