News Article: Forbes' Hockey Analysis: It's not for us. To be revisited.
- Thread starter WickedWrister
- Start date
- Status
Le Magnifique 66
Let's Go Pens
My thought is Forbes always has stupid attention-getting articles about everything to generate traffic to their site
Gold Diamond
Watermarks
Coach Travis
Back2Back!!!
I'm tired of this lazy-person's thinking. Are we top heavy? Sure but that's not the problem. Our problems have been a) Signing the wrong guys around the core and b) Not developing players who can be in the regular lineup and not take up much space.
Going forward, the cost of Crosby, Malkin, Kessel and Letang will be a lower % of the cap and lower than other team's cores as top players sign for Kane & Toews contracts.
plaidchuck
Registered User
Wow this team has taken a beating for the trade overall. I'm guessing it's still the influence of the Canadian hate machine with kessel?
Winger for Hire
Praise Beebo
HuskerTornado
Jobu Needs Rum
Saying the Pens don't need a top end winger because of Crosby and Malkin having high ppg....is not watching games, but only looking at statlines. This team had issues lacking both high caliber scoring wings AND depth. Scoring has been a big problem in recent playoffs. Phil will help tremendously in that department. With the cap increasing, Phil's addition makes the Pens better in the top and bottom 6, as it should push some fringe top 6 guys into the bottom 6.
Defense is going to be a question mark, but having Martin vs Kessel doesn't make this a better team. We've already seen that movie.
Defense is going to be a question mark, but having Martin vs Kessel doesn't make this a better team. We've already seen that movie.
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
OTR (talk show in Canada) still talks about the trade pretty much everyday. Most panelists bash him.
TheSniper26
Registered User
This article is kind of all over the map. It makes a point to basically say that, despite Crosby/Malkin producing, the Pens still struggled offensively. I mean, yeah, that's why they targeted a guy that could add more offense. They identified the biggest problem on the team(lack of offense beyond Sid/Geno) and addressed it without giving up too much. How is that anything but a win?
I also enjoy the little graph. So apparently to find a successful team that spent in the same ballpark as us on their top 4 players we need to stretch all the way back to... the 2014 Rangers. And before that we need to get out the historical documents to look all the way back at... 2010 when both Philly/Chicago hovered around that same 45% mark. So, clearly, history tells us that Crysby sucks and Kessel's fat.
I also enjoy the little graph. So apparently to find a successful team that spent in the same ballpark as us on their top 4 players we need to stretch all the way back to... the 2014 Rangers. And before that we need to get out the historical documents to look all the way back at... 2010 when both Philly/Chicago hovered around that same 45% mark. So, clearly, history tells us that Crysby sucks and Kessel's fat.
tom_servo
Registered User
Zero Pucks
Size matters
- May 17, 2009
- 4,589
- 303
Shady Machine
Registered User
- Aug 6, 2010
- 36,704
- 8,141
Yeah it's a pretty weak analysis. People will buy into it though because the narrative has already been set up for years.
plaidchuck
Registered User
You know what at this point I'll take a couple higher scoring games even if they lose, rather than three straight 2-1 losses in the playoffs.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
I am using this old canard as an IQ test.
Guess whether I think this writer passed or failed.
You can look at every playoff team in any year and almost every one has around 40% or more of their cap tied up in 4 or 5 guys.
You want to see a more 'balanced' team? Look for the lottery pick teams. I have looked it up and posted for every team multiple times before, I am not going to do the work again. But go look for yourself, the truth is the OPPOSITE of what this article claims, and which most at HF believe.
Analytics back up that top heavy is the way to win as well.
NHL team depth may not be key to winning, analytics suggest
Is it better to have a top-heavy team with Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin? Or a deeper squad? Analytics reveal the answer may not be what you think.
....
To figure that out, we looked at a common statistical measure called standard deviation, which measures the spread in ice time among each team’s top 12 forwards. All things being equal, we’d expect deeper teams to have a lower standard deviation (i.e. less of a spread in ice time between their top 12).
The table below shows each team’s ranking by that measure of depth, as well as its points percentage (total points earned as a percentage of total points available).
(Chart showing teams rank)
There were some surprises for sure.
For example, the Blackhawks rely heavily on their top guys when the game’s close.
When measured by the standard deviation of their top 12 forwards’ ice time, Chicago ranks 21st in the league, a fact that suggests coach Joel Quenneville doesn’t think as highly of players who aren’t named Kane, Toews, Sharp or Hossa as others might.
More important, when we looked at the correlation between standard deviation and points percentage, it was positive, meaning teams that were relatively “thinner†did better. The correlation was admittedly small (0.06), meaning the relationship wasn’t strong, but it does mean being “top heavy†doesn’t necessarily hurt if your top guys really are that good.
Not only is “depth†hard to define, it may not be a necessary ingredient to win either.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hocke...ot-be-necessary-to-win-analytics-suggest.html
Guess whether I think this writer passed or failed.
You can look at every playoff team in any year and almost every one has around 40% or more of their cap tied up in 4 or 5 guys.
You want to see a more 'balanced' team? Look for the lottery pick teams. I have looked it up and posted for every team multiple times before, I am not going to do the work again. But go look for yourself, the truth is the OPPOSITE of what this article claims, and which most at HF believe.
Analytics back up that top heavy is the way to win as well.
NHL team depth may not be key to winning, analytics suggest
Is it better to have a top-heavy team with Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin? Or a deeper squad? Analytics reveal the answer may not be what you think.
....
To figure that out, we looked at a common statistical measure called standard deviation, which measures the spread in ice time among each team’s top 12 forwards. All things being equal, we’d expect deeper teams to have a lower standard deviation (i.e. less of a spread in ice time between their top 12).
The table below shows each team’s ranking by that measure of depth, as well as its points percentage (total points earned as a percentage of total points available).
(Chart showing teams rank)
There were some surprises for sure.
For example, the Blackhawks rely heavily on their top guys when the game’s close.
When measured by the standard deviation of their top 12 forwards’ ice time, Chicago ranks 21st in the league, a fact that suggests coach Joel Quenneville doesn’t think as highly of players who aren’t named Kane, Toews, Sharp or Hossa as others might.
More important, when we looked at the correlation between standard deviation and points percentage, it was positive, meaning teams that were relatively “thinner†did better. The correlation was admittedly small (0.06), meaning the relationship wasn’t strong, but it does mean being “top heavy†doesn’t necessarily hurt if your top guys really are that good.
Not only is “depth†hard to define, it may not be a necessary ingredient to win either.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hocke...ot-be-necessary-to-win-analytics-suggest.html
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
An analysis that I would like to read would be one that would look at how much the "secondary" players of the latest cup champions make.
That would be hard to determine objectively who those 3-4 guys would be, but I am pretty sure that such a study would show that they are cost-effective/ECL players. That's the name of the game. Top team will have to allocate around 35%-40% of their cap to their top 4 players. Where true genius is found is in how you can round out the roster. That's where we have sucked. We have overpaid and kept role players too long. In the cap era, you can't do that. The Hawks "clear house" after each cup and they draft well. That's how they remained at the top.
That's what history shows. Nothing to do with Kessel or any other particular player.
That would be hard to determine objectively who those 3-4 guys would be, but I am pretty sure that such a study would show that they are cost-effective/ECL players. That's the name of the game. Top team will have to allocate around 35%-40% of their cap to their top 4 players. Where true genius is found is in how you can round out the roster. That's where we have sucked. We have overpaid and kept role players too long. In the cap era, you can't do that. The Hawks "clear house" after each cup and they draft well. That's how they remained at the top.
That's what history shows. Nothing to do with Kessel or any other particular player.
plaidchuck
Registered User
Yeah it's going to be a fun season hearing the kessel bashing when he doesn't get a hat trick every game.
Obviously, Kessel wasn't going to bring a Stanley Cup to the Leafs. The Hockey Hall of Fame stores the Cup and it's all the way at Front and Yonge. Phil's daily hotdog trek stops 4 blocks away; guy is way too lazy to walk an extra 10 minutes.
The key for the Penguins will be to introduce Phil to Primanti Brothers and convince him that a Stanley Cup ring entitles you to free sandwiches for life.
The key for the Penguins will be to introduce Phil to Primanti Brothers and convince him that a Stanley Cup ring entitles you to free sandwiches for life.
Last edited:
Winger for Hire
Praise Beebo
Pit top 4 around 32 m
Hawks top 4 32.7 ( Seabrook is an UFA next year at 31. Good luck keep him under 7 mil)
Tampa 23.8 ( lots of value from youngsters, we'll see if they can keep it up )
Rangers at 25.0 mil ( at a few million onto after Derek Stephan gets paid )
I don't know... seem like his article is factual based on the fact that only 1 team can win Stanley Cup ( or Superbowl ) at a lot of things have to line up, as well as some lucky breaks along the way.
Hawks top 4 32.7 ( Seabrook is an UFA next year at 31. Good luck keep him under 7 mil)
Tampa 23.8 ( lots of value from youngsters, we'll see if they can keep it up )
Rangers at 25.0 mil ( at a few million onto after Derek Stephan gets paid )
I don't know... seem like his article is factual based on the fact that only 1 team can win Stanley Cup ( or Superbowl ) at a lot of things have to line up, as well as some lucky breaks along the way.
Speaking Moistly
What a terrible image.
Their problem isn't what they pay their highend players, it's the 'Shero's last off season' brigade and the dislike of youth that gets the Pens. If Scuderi, Dupuis and Kunitz weren't on the books their cap situation would be insanely good. JR has been damn good about avoiding those types of contracts so far.
Kessel won't bring them a cup, but Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury, Maatta, Hornqvist, Perron, Pouliot and Kessel might do it.
Kessel won't bring them a cup, but Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury, Maatta, Hornqvist, Perron, Pouliot and Kessel might do it.
Kristopher Letang
RIP Nipsey
I have no doubt we are going to win 2 Cups in the next 5 years. The problem is the Premium we pay for average players, not the money we pay for good players. If they stop paying premium for Experience & leadership, we are winning this for sure. They seems to forget that our Core is one of the most experienced in the league and yet they still bring "experienced guys".
We have how many Stanley cup winners? How many playoffs appearence? Leadership? Crosby Letang Malkin Fleury have been here for what? 10 years? Stop brigging good stories guys and bring the Kessels of this world who are actually GOOD AT PLAYING HOCKEY. I don't care if you can tell me that it was your fault when we Interview you, I'd rather bring someone who doesn't have to make excuses because he's good.
We have how many Stanley cup winners? How many playoffs appearence? Leadership? Crosby Letang Malkin Fleury have been here for what? 10 years? Stop brigging good stories guys and bring the Kessels of this world who are actually GOOD AT PLAYING HOCKEY. I don't care if you can tell me that it was your fault when we Interview you, I'd rather bring someone who doesn't have to make excuses because he's good.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
OT: 2024 Washington Commanders off-season thread: change we can believe in!- Latest: dreadpirateroberts
-
-
WCQF | Vancouver Canucks vs. Nashville Predators | Series Talk- Latest: afrocentric
-
