AustonMitchWilly
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2013
- 2,315
- 1
Can you do the same for Komorov?
It's not much better. Koma is a stud.
Can you do the same for Komorov?
Nope.
After looking at the numbers Gunnar had lower OZFO%, NZFO%, and higher DZFO%, than Polak.
It's not much better. Koma is a stud.
Can you do the same for Komorov?
I guess you are talking last season then? I'm not.
Some might be surprised but the situation with Leo is the same as it is with Polak.
Polak is #8th worst Dmen (of 187) in the NHL in Goals Against /60 minutes.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC
Komarov is #2 worst Forward (of 312 total) in GA60.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC
Both Komarov and Polak are near the very top of the NHL list for most goals against at ES 5v5 and Leafs give up more goals against as a result when they're in the line-up as opposed to out of it.
So its not hard to see why the Leafs record with or without them would vary.
Some might be surprised but the situation with Leo is the same as it is with Polak.
Polak is #8th worst Dmen (of 187) in the NHL in Goals Against /60 minutes.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC
Komarov is #2 worst Forward (of 312 total) in GA60.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC
Both Komarov and Polak are near the very top of the NHL list for most goals against at ES 5v5 and Leafs give up more goals against as a result when they're in the line-up as opposed to out of it.
So its not hard to see why the Leafs record with or without them would vary.
Of course. You can only go by the numbers that they had to work with at the time of trade.
It was a bad one for us then, and especially a bad one for us now.
I guess you could compare Gunnar's stats with us to Polak's stats to us, which would favor Gunnar.
Gunnar's current stats, past stats, and Leaf's only stats all favor him being better than Polak andstronger in defensive situations.
Theres really no comparison.
Leo also has the most points per 60 minutes at 3, when the starts are adjusted for Zone Start Percentage.
Dion carried Gunnar last year, just like he is carrying Franson this year. I know you don't want to see that because you hate Dion so much but it's true.
So I take it you are just going to ignore my answers to you where I provided the necessary context for the numbers you keep using?
Gunnarsson is simply going to have a better time playing defense than Polak because every time there's a scramble for a puck in his own zone, his Blues wingers aren't racing up to center ice, leaving him to a) win a foot race to the puck b) win a puck battle against one or two forecheckers c) be forced to make a perfect 60 foot stretch pass.
The stats prove that Gunnar was better for the leafs than Polak was for the Blues.
Before Polak was a leaf, and after, Gunnar is and was still far superior.
They still give up 40 or so shots a night regardless of which one you have there.I take Corsi QoC every morning...oh wait, that's Co Q10.
Everyone over 40 should be taking it to ensure a healthy heart...
Stats without context are all smoke and mirrors. Raw data on its own is completely misleading.
Gunner was a solid unspectacular Leaf defender who was there to mitigate the effects of Dion's penchant to drift and attack at questionable times.
Polak isnt in the same role, nor was he in St Louis. He's a better fit than Gunner because it gave the Leafs a physical right shot and allowed Dion to go back to the left side. The top pairing now has dangerous shooters on both points (Dion, Franson)
The Leafs' D needed some proven physicality that Gunner could not provide. Polak can bring it all night.
When you get your nose out of the spreadsheet and balance the information with context, you get a better picture.
Polak fills a hole that they have been looking for since Komisarek was unable to live up to the task.
Dions play went off the deep end last year once 7 d started rolling and Phaneuf / gunner was broken up. Gunners numbers didn't plummet
That would suggest the opposite no?
Couldn't be more wrong. The reason why this franchise won't be successful because it's best players aren't playing a whole 200 ft game. Kessel (one dimensional) Dion (soft as butter), JVR (one dimensional) Lupul(One dimensional) These 4 players are huge hinderances in the D-zone and a big reason why this team gives up so many shots and so many goals. If we had more players who played a hard game we'd be a lot more successful but if you can't get your best players to buy in to a 200 ft game and or commit themselves fully to the cause then the team is doomed. It's been doomed since we got these 2. It's why we have collapses every year.
Guys like Winnik, Santorelli, Polak, etc are support bottom line guys...if these guys are relied upon for us to be successful then we have been long gone for a long time. It doesn't matter if these guys are signed to 1 year deals or not, they aren't the problem. It's the guys with 7 and 8 year deals that are the problem, it doesn't matter how many "hockey guys" we sign or how long we sign them for. We have to get rid of the problems, and Kessel and Dion and others are the problem.
You're not debating me you're debating the merits of Corsi Analytics.
I'm simply using the data supplied http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com
Are you saying GA60 is not accurate when compared to all players in the NHL and both Dmen and Forwards in comparison?.
You seem to want to add other context (which is fine) to help explain why Polak numbers are poor compared to his teammates and NHL peers at position.
Nothing wrong with you wanting to include shooting % and save % but PDO for Buffalo dmen for example doesn't help Roman's ranking on the worst GA60 rankings.
Thanks for the answer.
I think any kind of statistic should always be used in light of others, otherwise you will miss out on key factors. That's why I always try to use more than one in any situation.
A comparison with GA/60, for example, is only fair if both players involved played the same kind of minutes, otherwise you risk having extremely sheltered players look better than star D-men.
Robidas has an even better GA/60 than Gunnarsson. Would you say that his game has been extremely good so far this season?
Thanks for the answer.
I think any kind of statistic should always be used in light of others, otherwise you will miss out on key factors. That's why I always try to use more than one in any situation.
A comparison with GA/60, for example, is only fair if both players involved played the same kind of minutes, otherwise you risk having extremely sheltered players look better than star D-men.
Robidas has an even better GA/60 than Gunnarsson. Would you say that his game has been extremely good so far this season?
Not surprised, if I were a player on this team, I wouldn't play defence either, seeing how our best players treat that side of the game.
You are only as strong as your weakest or strongest link.
Dions play went off the deep end last year once 7 d started rolling and Phaneuf / gunner was broken up. Gunners numbers didn't plummet
That would suggest the opposite no?
I take Corsi QoC every morning...oh wait, that's Co Q10.
Everyone over 40 should be taking it to ensure a healthy heart...
Stats without context are all smoke and mirrors. Raw data on its own is completely misleading.
Gunner was a solid unspectacular Leaf defender who was there to mitigate the effects of Dion's penchant to drift and attack at questionable times.
Polak isnt in the same role, nor was he in St Louis. He's a better fit than Gunner because it gave the Leafs a physical right shot and allowed Dion to go back to the left side. The top pairing now has dangerous shooters on both points (Dion, Franson)
The Leafs' D needed some proven physicality that Gunner could not provide. Polak can bring it all night.
When you get your nose out of the spreadsheet and balance the information with context, you get a better picture.
Polak fills a hole that they have been looking for since Komisarek was unable to live up to the task.