So many things that made me goI will try and point them all out
First off, SURPRISE!!! An article that set out to make Bozak look bad succeeded (stat picking is pretty easy isn't it).
Next his selection of centers used in my opinion is off. He went after choosing centers with an offensively slanted role by looking at a ratio of PP to SH faceoffs. Why the offensive zone start % stat wasn't used here instead I'm not sure. I can see the methodology, but the other stat is so much easier to getThe cutoff ratio used also was 0.75, which to me is a red flag. The writer wanted offensively slanted centers, but is willing to take centers that have taken more SH faceoffs than PP? My guess for this is because Bozak was a little over 0.75 and not above 1 which is why 0.75 was used.
Next he says he will ignore the on ice sv% for that player when on the ice because he doesn't play goal. That stat does however usually give a pretty good indication of how a players defensive abilities are. Why isn't this stat used? Probably because Bozak has a good on ice sv%.
Then he starts using some Fenwick (imagine that, using Fenwick in his calculation to prove Bozak is bad when everyone knows that the Leafs have had a bad Fenwick the last couple years) calculation and says "there is SOME randomness in this calculation's results, but the idea is that over the long term that randomness would wash out" but then proceeds to use only the games from 2011-2013, in other words, 1 and a half seasons. By the way, thought I would add here that his list of 72 top 6 centers includes a number of people I wouldn't consider a top 6 center and even more people who don't play center.
Further I'm still confused by this part: "Just an aside on this point - maybe this helps explain WHY Chicago had Bolland as their 3rd C? Just a suggestion that maybe the Stanley Cup champions, who have won multiple times in recent years, and do well according to fancy stats, know more about his value than the Leafs?"
Last I checked we aren't playing Bolland as a top 6 C for most games and you just have to follow the leafs for a bit to understand it's not so much as a top 6 but rather a top 9.
Then for the defensive side he does some Corsi regression calculation thing. This time instead of using the 2011-2013 stats like above (since that would be good for comparison sake), he uses the stats since 2007. This way Bozak can be ranked 678th out of 712 forwards. He then proceeds to mention Bolland is 600th in the same ranking as if to take a shot at him too. But wasn't Bolland wildly considered to be one of the best 3rd line centers (ie defensive centers) for a few of these years? Wouldn't that indicate that the rankings mean squat? Or you could also look at it as the best defensive players are near the bottom of this list with Bolland meaning Bozak is good?
The the article concludes with "I think there's really only one obvious option here - and that's to make Kadri the top line C for the future... and the future is now."
In the last couple games, yes, it appears that Kadri can play top line center duties with Kessel and JVR and produce at a slightly higher pace. But at the same time, what have our other lines done in those games? When Kadri is with Kessel we largely become a 1 line team. Yes, yes, we still have people like Lupul and Clarkson and Raymond on the other lines, but they are not nearly as productive when Kadri isn't playing with them. Spread the offense out.
tl;dr, I have issues with the article
So many things that made me go
First off, SURPRISE!!! An article that set out to make Bozak look bad succeeded (stat picking is pretty easy isn't it).
Next his selection of centers used in my opinion is off. He went after choosing centers with an offensively slanted role by looking at a ratio of PP to SH faceoffs. Why the offensive zone start % stat wasn't used here instead I'm not sure. I can see the methodology, but the other stat is so much easier to get
Next he says he will ignore the on ice sv% for that player when on the ice because he doesn't play goal. That stat does however usually give a pretty good indication of how a players defensive abilities are. Why isn't this stat used? Probably because Bozak has a good on ice sv%.
Then he starts using some Fenwick (imagine that, using Fenwick in his calculation to prove Bozak is bad when everyone knows that the Leafs have had a bad Fenwick the last couple years) calculation and says "there is SOME randomness in this calculation's results, but the idea is that over the long term that randomness would wash out" but then proceeds to use only the games from 2011-2013, in other words, 1 and a half seasons. By the way, thought I would add here that his list of 72 top 6 centers includes a number of people I wouldn't consider a top 6 center and even more people who don't play center.
Further I'm still confused by this part: "Just an aside on this point - maybe this helps explain WHY Chicago had Bolland as their 3rd C? Just a suggestion that maybe the Stanley Cup champions, who have won multiple times in recent years, and do well according to fancy stats, know more about his value than the Leafs?"
Last I checked we aren't playing Bolland as a top 6 C for most games and you just have to follow the leafs for a bit to understand it's not so much as a top 6 but rather a top 9.
Then for the defensive side he does some Corsi regression calculation thing. This time instead of using the 2011-2013 stats like above (since that would be good for comparison sake), he uses the stats since 2007. This way Bozak can be ranked 678th out of 712 forwards. He then proceeds to mention Bolland is 600th in the same ranking as if to take a shot at him too. But wasn't Bolland wildly considered to be one of the best 3rd line centers (ie defensive centers) for a few of these years? Wouldn't that indicate that the rankings mean squat? Or you could also look at it as the best defensive players are near the bottom of this list with Bolland meaning Bozak is good?
The the article concludes with "I think there's really only one obvious option here - and that's to make Kadri the top line C for the future... and the future is now."
In the last couple games, yes, it appears that Kadri can play top line center duties with Kessel and JVR and produce at a slightly higher pace. But at the same time, what have our other lines done in those games? When Kadri is with Kessel we largely become a 1 line team. Yes, yes, we still have people like Lupul and Clarkson and Raymond on the other lines, but they are not nearly as productive when Kadri isn't playing with them. Spread the offense out.
tl;dr, I have issues with the article
Keep calm, Corsi's wrong.... again
In the last 2 games there have been 2 even strength goals where the kessel line wasn't on the ice. And one of those was almost immediately after a leafs powerplay ended, and Kadri assisted it
The team as a whole in my opinion would score less if Kadri and Bozak switched places.
