Who do I think should be called up...
Where is the Loov?
I will always Loov you.
My Loov.
California Loov.
Summer Loov.
I can go all day...
Percy, Loov and Harrington to get some time?
I'm afraid of these young guys coming in and ruining the draft picks our older guys worked so hard on. Aren't there some scrub career ahlers we could bring up?
I want last place secured, don't want a late season run to finish anywhere above last. Prospects can develop on the marlies on route to a championship there.
Harrington is going to have about as much time as Hunwick will, he's out for the year, has been for a little while now.
This just in:
Lupul devastated to be just one of 12 injured Leafs.
He is quoted as saying "I just don't feel special anymore".
Lupul expects to be in game shape by Sunday April 10, 2016.
Alright, so I'm going to break this argument wide open with a couple of numbers...QOC and Zone Starts.
QOC (quality of competition based on opponent's CORSI)
Hunwick: 1.835
Rielly: 1.513
Dion: 0.445
Jake: 0.145
Polak: -0.961
Marincin: -1.035
Corrado: -1.079
Offensive Zone starts:
Corrado: 68.8%
Marincin: 55.7%
Jake: 53.3%
Dion: 53.1%
Polak: 48.1%
Morgan: 45.8%
Hunwick: 43.1%
There we go. So not only do Hunwick and Morgan (but especially Hunwick) play against statistically the best opponents, they're also the ones on the ice on defensive faceoffs. Meanwhile, Marincin (and Corrado) appear to be playing against by far the weakest opposition lines AND the majority of their starts are in the offensive zone.
I hope that's enough to explain why Marincin's shot supression numbers are unreliable. Most of his shifts start in the opponent's zone against their 3rd and 4th lines.
These stats also show how much weight Hunwick has carried for this team this year...perhaps that's how he got that hernia.
edit: including link for data source: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...13+14+15+16+63+67+57+58+59+60+61+62+64+65+66#
Also, perhaps I should have used Rel Corsi rather than Corsi for comparison, but it wouldn't have changed the conclusion other than to make the discrepancy between Marincin and our 1st pairing even larger than straight Corsi.
But we can actually see with numbers that Marincin is actually very good at suppressing shots.
My opinion is backed up with facts.
Marincin has troublesome decision making and isn't very good at handling the puck, but he can deliver accurate and crisp passes and has the best stick work on the team, as well as good cap control. His reach allows him to contain opponents, something he actually uses rather well.
So you are basically saying that you only care about statistics when it confirms what you already believe?
I see. Analytics are useful, but only when they confirm the viewpoints you already had. Sadly, I see this intepretation all too commonly.
Yes, current analytics have many flaws. But if you can't address those flaws and objectively argue when they should and shouldn't apply, you can't choose to use them when they support you and call a waste of time when they don't.
Analytics and stats don't lie, I get it. But I also get the game of hockey and watch a lot of it, and I'm fairly certain I can point out a bad hockey player when I see one, and analytics won't change my opinion on certain players. Marincin is one of them. He is bad. An accurate and crisp pass is great when it's on your own players stick, not on the opponents stick giving them a breakaway.
I think people go with what they know. I find analytics interesting but I don't necessarily trust them at this point. Every time somebody posts some eye opening stats, some other guy comes in with more analytics that disprove that theory. As seen a few posts up.Everyone thinks they 'get the game of hockey', and think their eye test is accurate. The limitations of the eye test is the limitations of human cognition, it's not a very good idea to think yourself an exception to this.
I don't know how many times I've thought one thing based on viewing games alone, then had statistical analysis say another. Going back with this in mind has often allowed me to notice things that I didn't previously, things that hint that the truth is probably at least somewhere at the half-point.
I think people go with what they know. I find analytics interesting but I don't necessarily trust them at this point. Every time somebody posts some eye opening stats, some other guy comes in with more analytics that disprove that theory. As seen a few posts up.
There is so much garbage in analytics right now that unless you're an expert, you can easily paint yourself a phony picture that would be less valuable then the eye test.
Analytics and stats don't lie, I get it.
The difference between Hunwick and Marincin is about 2.8 corsi events per 60 minutes. That's not a whole lot.
Furthermore, you do the same mistake many others do. You identify that Hunwick plays tougher minutes than Marincin and draw conclusions without measuring the effect of the difference between them. You see Marincin in the bottom and draw the conclusion that he plays only against third and fourth liners, when the numbers you provided only show that he played against some measurement worse competition. You can't say what this means without identifying what that measurement is.
This has been done, the effect of the difference has been negligible which is why many numbers have stopped bothering to include QoC at all.
So, zone starts then. They are heavily criticized nowadays because they look at faceoff statistics, when most changes are on the fly. Tests done to look at this and take changes on the fly into account has put some serious question marks on the usefulness of ZS%.
To put into another context. You are pretty much saying that a 10 point forward is better than a 60 point forward based on zone starts and QoC. Would it make a bit difference? Sure, it might be 20 against 50 with things normalized, but it won't make the numbers switch place.
Everyone thinks they 'get the game of hockey', and think their eye test is accurate. The limitations of the eye test is the limitations of human cognition, it's not a very good idea to think yourself an exception to this.
I don't know how many times I've thought one thing based on viewing games alone, then had statistical analysis say another. Going back with this in mind has often allowed me to notice things that I didn't previously, things that hint that the truth is probably at least somewhere at the half-point.
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
When it comes to hockey, analytics and stats lie all the time.
Statistics lie all the time, period. This isn't just a hockey thing. They are a very useful tool but are not the be all, end all.
Statistically speaking, when Marincin is the defensive zone:
I throw up 4% of the time.
I am nauseous 92% of the time.
I have mild discomfort in my stomach 3.99% of the time.
I have minimal stomach issues, 0.01% of the time.
When I consider these statistics (stomach test) in conjunction with the eye test, heart test, brain test, and analytics, it leads me to believe that Marincin is awful and should just go away.
hunwick has been very good for us this year, hes a small guy but moves great and has pretty solid D with solid physicality...but grinding with the big boys all year on the 1st sometimes 2nd D pairings has worn him out
hes a very good 2nd or 3rd pairing defender, i would even extend this player...hes 30 and has good years left