Player Discussion Kevin Shattenkirk

[Machinehead]

I think I can safely say I watch more hockey than 95% of this forum.

But please, continue.

Re: John Carlson, I can safely say that I watch other teams more than 99.9% of HFNYR.

 

[Inferno]

No one is using a single stat. There have been like 10 metrics used individually that all paint a larger story that you're ignoring because your eyes disagree.



I'm pretty confident. In general, like Irish said, I think you'll find that a lot of the fancystat people generally watch more hockey than the eye-test people. Because the thing about the fancystat people is that we are trying very, very hard to understand hockey. And the way you do that is to study everything as much as you can. This includes watching lots of hockey, reading lots of articles, and keeping up to do date on new metrics, and their effectiveness.

All told, I probably watched 200 or so hockey games this year. And let me tell you, it's not enough.

There was a time I'd watch 200+ games a year....then I got married...then I had a kid. Now I watch like 90 to 100 and that's it. It's tough.

 

[Machinehead]

Last 11 games Pionk was at 42% and his partner Staal at 42.58%. They got the toughest minutes. Usage all season, Pionk is dark blue:..

Skjei-Sproul had 46/48% and O'Gara-Gilmour had 47/49%. Pionk averaged 23 minutes per game, most on the team. Gilmour had the least with 14 minutes.

I would not want to go out on a limb and claim that the difference between Pionk on one hand and Gilmour on the other -- isn't all usage.

I think advanced stats can be tremendously useful. But for a while at least there many had a very very firm opinion that unless proven wrong the data could be taken as truth. I just don't think that approach will lead you right. The noise is too loud. Hockey is a team sport. The game is a living organism. The system your coach use, your teammates, who lines are matched, etc etc etc play a big part. The data we have acts as proxies for something else.

The thing is, nobody implied that Gilmour could handle a top 4 role, but Pionk very obviously couldn't.

 

[Machinehead]

There was a time I'd watch 200+ games a year....then I got married...then I had a kid. Now I watch like 90 to 100 and that's it. It's tough.

I used to watch 200+ games a year.

Then God of War was invented.

 

[Ola]

The thing is, nobody implied that Gilmour could handle a top 4 role, but Pionk very obviously couldn't.

Why is that very obvious???

The only thing that was ‘very obvious’ was that he — at least alone — couldn’t carry a top unit on a tanking team going up against the best of the other team playing 23 minutes a night...

“Handle a top 4 role” is something very very different than that...

I definitely think he could have done OK on a second pairing on a good team.

 

[True Blue]

The thing is, nobody implied that Gilmour could handle a top 4 role, but Pionk very obviously couldn't.

Pionk was not used in top 4, but top 2. What rookie of under 20 NHL games can handle such a role?

 

[Machinehead]

Why is that very obvious???

Because the Rangers got man-handled when Pionk was on the ice.

 

[Machinehead]

Pionk was not used in top 4, but top 2. What rookie of under 20 NHL games can handle such a role?

Could Gilmour have possibly done worse in the same role?

Usage is important, but there's still a fundamental misunderstanding of usage here.

 

[True Blue]

Could Gilmour have possibly done worse in the same role?

Usage is important, but there's still a fundamental misunderstanding of usage here.

Yes, he could have. Gilmour, in what I saw, was awful defensively. And he did not receive nearly the defensive draws nor was he out there against the opposition's top players. Those two facts matter.

 

[Ola]

Could Gilmour have possibly done worse in the same role?

Usage is important, but there's still a fundamental misunderstanding of usage here.

Yup, and I think you stand for that misunderstanding...

You can question AV but I think there was a reason for why he played one kid 23 min a night while the other got 14 min...

 

[Machinehead]

Yes, he could have. Gilmour, in what I saw, was awful defensively. And he did not receive nearly the defensive draws nor was he out there against the opposition's top players. Those two facts matter.

Seven defensemen in the entire league had a worse shot differential than Pionk.

If we put Gilmour in that role, God forbid, he would have been bottom 5 instead of bottom 8? Oh no!

We're looking at usage and saying Pionk is good and Gilmour is bad. We should be looking at usage and saying they're probably the same player at this point.

 

[Machinehead]

Yup, and I think you stand for that misunderstanding...

You can question AV but I think there was a reason for why he played one kid 23 min a night while the other got 14 min...

Telling me McDavid is the worst player in the league is a better argument than appealing to AV.

 

[True Blue]

Seven defensemen in the entire league had a worse shot differential than Pionk.

And how many of those defensemen were 22 year old rookies with under 30 games of NHL experience? All by being forced to play the role of a top pairing defenseman?

If we put Gilmour in that role, God forbid, he would have been bottom 5 instead of bottom 8? Oh no!

Reasonably sure you are missing the point here. Either willfully or not.

We're looking at usage and saying Pionk is good and Gilmour is bad. We should be looking at usage and saying they're probably the same player at this point.

Except they are not. Gilmour would have had have been used in the same way, in order to use the same stat to equate them. And when comparing Pionk to the rest of the NHL, one needs to remember context (how old he is, what is his usage, how much experience he has).

I am not throwing Pionk as a future top pairing d-man. I am not even sure I am ready to annoit him top-4. But then I am also not the one who needs to denigrate Pionk in order to justify Shattenkirk being annoited a legit top pairing d-man.

 

[Machinehead]

I would bet anything that if Gilmour were the one getting hard usage and getting caved, people would like him better.

Stats are the results and usage is the context. Everyone keeps doing that the other way around. That's the misunderstanding.

 

[True Blue]

Stats are the results and usage is the context. Everyone keeps doing that the other way around. That's the misunderstanding.

The determination of results, solely predicated on stats is purposefully ignoring context and taking a view of a situation with sheer tunnel vision blinders on.

 

[Machinehead]

The determination of results, solely predicated on stats is purposefully ignoring context and taking a view of a situation with sheer tunnel vision blinders on.

The determination of results, solely predicated on usage is purposefully ignoring performance and taking a view of a situation with sheer tunnel vision blinders on.

 

[True Blue]

The determination of results, solely predicated on usage is purposefully ignoring performance and taking a view of a situation with sheer tunnel vision blinders on.

Apologies, but who is determining the results here? The only result that was determined was your presumption of how awful Pionk was based solely on a stat. As was your determination of how good defensively Shattenkirk is, based solely off a stat. Ergo, you equated performance with what a statistic told you.

 

[Synergy27]

I would bet anything that if Gilmour were the one getting hard usage and getting caved, people would like him better.

Stats are the results and usage is the context. Everyone keeps doing that the other way around. That's the misunderstanding.

Not all stats are results though, and I think that's a key misunderstanding. Simple counting stats are results. "Advanced" stats are the output of mathematical models that are attempting to interpret results. Mathematical models are subject to initial conditions\assumptions that will render them highly descriptive\predictive in certain situations and woefully inadequate in others.

In situations where your model doesn't reflect observed reality, sometimes it's a good idea to question the model, and sometimes you need to question the observation. Both require careful consideration and often deeper investigation before declaring something true.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I think I can safely say I watch more hockey than 95% of this forum.

But please, continue.

I rival this

 

[CHGoalie27]

delete. not worth it.

 

[silverfish]

delete. not worth it.

I SAW THE NOTIFICATION. POST IT. LET'S DO THIS

 

[McRanger]

Shots and goals aren't advanced stats. They're just stats.

 

[Irishguy42]

Corsi isn't an advanced stat. Shot attempts are something literally anyone with eyes can see.

 

[NYR]

If JG ends up hiring Trotz, some of you AS people aren't going to be very happy when he buries him on the #2/#3 pair after stating publicly that, that's where he belongs.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Corsi isn't an advanced stat. Shot attempts are something literally anyone with eyes can see.

Corsi is even visible on the official NHL website. If it's on there, I don't consider it an advanced stat