MLD2011 Sir Montagu Allan Rnd 1: Montreal Bad Habits (3) vs No-Names (6)

[seventieslord]

Defensemen, 500+ post-expansion games, at least 1.05 ESGA/GP

# | NAME | ESGA/GP | ESMin/GP | adj to 20 min
1 | MAROTTE, GILLES | 1.362 | 21.93 | 1.24
2 | STEWART, BOB | 1.334 | 19.92 | 1.34
3 | BERGMAN, GARY | 1.298 | 21.71 | 1.20
4 | GIBBS, BARRY | 1.200 | 21.14 | 1.14
5 | BURROWS, DAVE | 1.186 | 20.22 | 1.17
6 | VADNAIS, CAROL | 1.153 | 19.28 | 1.20
7 | TURNBULL, IAN | 1.142 | 20.70 | 1.10
8 | ROLFE, DALE | 1.129 | 20.70 | 1.09
9 | LARSON, REED | 1.126 | 19.25 | 1.17
10 | HUBER, WILLIE | 1.119 | 18.40 | 1.22
11 | LEETCH, BRIAN | 1.109 | 18.96 | 1.17
12 | PRATT, TRACY | 1.109 | 19.30 | 1.15
13 | STACKHOUSE, RON | 1.104 | 20.46 | 1.08
14 | BABYCH, DAVE | 1.090 | 17.76 | 1.23
15 | NYLUND, GARY | 1.088 | 17.80 | 1.22
16 | WHITE, BILL | 1.081 | 22.13 | 0.98
17 | COFFEY, PAUL | 1.080 | 18.51 | 1.17
18 | REID, TOM | 1.066 | 19.52 | 1.09
19 | GUEVREMONT, JOCELYN | 1.063 | 19.82 | 1.07
20 | NEILSON, JIM | 1.062 | 20.84 | 1.02
21 | SMITH, DALLAS | 1.057 | 21.33 | 0.99
22 | BERARD, BRYAN | 1.053 | 15.93 | 1.32

Notes:

- Berard is in some pretty rare company to begin with, before you break it down.

- the list is dominated by guys who played some copious minutes at ES. Berard didn't. he's a full 3 minutes (20%) behind all except three of these guys.

- the list is also dominated by 70s defensemen, just like most GF/GA related stats tend to be, due to the lack of parity in the decade.

- Adjusted to 20 minutes of ES TOI/GP, Berard would find himself behind only Bob Stewart, who, although known as a heavily-relied on physical defensive defenseman, was on the worst collection of teams of any player, ever.

- Coffey's Coffey, Leetch is Coffey light. Unquestioned Norris winners.

- Marotte, Bergman, Burrows, White, Neilson and Smith had excellent defensive reputations and their places here are due to heavy minutes against top players. Gibbs is not in their class, but similar style and reason. Rolfe, Stewart, Pratt, and Reid would be behind him.

- Vadnais, Turnbull, Larson, Huber all had defensive issues for their whole careers, and that's why they're here. Stackhouse, Guevremont and Babych got better, but not quick enough to escape the list.

- Nylund was a mediocre player on bad teams.

- And then there's Berard.

 

[seventieslord]

That's why they had bad numbers too.....

Are you serious? The differences I showed you between Berard's figure and the next-worst on his own team were massive and significant.

At the end of the day, he's my #6 defenseman, who will be getting the majority of his time on the PP. The fact that I think he was better defensively than he was doesn't matter since it is his offensive skills that will be on display.

fixed.

----------------

Iain, you have GVT numbers handy, I assume. Is there a leaderboard you can post, of most seasons compiled with a defensive GVT below a certain threshold, like 1.0 or something?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Iain, you have GVT numbers handy, I assume. Is there a leaderboard you can post, of most seasons compiled with a defensive GVT below a certain threshold, like 1.0 or something?

I wouldn't say 'handy', exactly. I do have them, but it would take some work to get at what you're looking for, I think.

 

[Dreakmur]

Are you serious? The differences I showed you between Berard's figure and the next-worst on his own team were massive and significant.

I'm done with Berard. He's my #6 defenseman who's playing mostly on the PP. You can think he sucks defensively all you want, but it doesn't matter - he's not asked to be good defensively anyway.

 

[Dreakmur]

Next up is the bottom-6.

Chamberlain - Marchant - Schinkel vs. Kelly - Gee - Gionta​

I assume you have Hound Dog rather than Battleship, so I'll use him unless you let me know otherwise.

In terms of physical play and toughness, Chamberlain and Kelly are both very strong. In terms of offense and defense, Chamberlain was stronger than Kelly. He's definately the better player.

Do we know what kind of player George Gee is yet? I've still never been able to find anything written about his style of play. It looks like he was decent offensively. Marchant has one of the best Selke records in the MLD, and he has an extremely prolific PK resume. In a checking role, Marchant is clearly the better player here.

Offensively, Gionta is probably a little better than Schinkel. Defensively, Schinkel is better. Really, they're probably pretty even overall.

Cotton - Kennedy - Green vs. Jonathan - Langkow - Laperriere​

Jonathan is basically just a goon. I don't think he belongs, especially since you can get toughness that actually has talent. As I said earlier, Cotton is among the elite roleplaying LWs, so he is far ahead of Jonathan.

Laperriere is a gritty guy who can probably be a decent 3rd PK unit forward. Green is tough to evaluate. He's also gritty, has some offense, and got Hart recognition. He's probably better than Laperriere.

I'm not really sure Langkow brings much as a 4th line centre. He has been decent as a bardgain basement 1st liner, but that has just caused his offense to be inflated. Kannedy brings grit, aggressiveness, and PK acumen.



Overall, the No-Names have a significant advantage in the bottom 6.

 

[seventieslord]

I wouldn't say 'handy', exactly. I do have them, but it would take some work to get at what you're looking for, I think.

I knew I had a file somewhere. Here are the leaders in GVT seasons below 1.0, minimum 50 games:

Luke Richardson 8
Jim Kyte 6
Jason Strudwick 5
Bill Gadsby 5
Bob McGill 5
Bryan Berard 4
Eric Cairns 4
Gord Donnelly 4
Marc Bergevin 4
Steven Finn 4

Basically a list of mediocre players on mediocre teams, and some guys more valued for their pugilism than actual offensive/defensive ability. Plus Gadsby. Although I have no idea how GVT pre-expansion can be accurate at all without SOG and GF/GA data.

I'm done with Berard. He's my #6 defenseman who's playing mostly on the PP. You can think he sucks defensively all you want, but it doesn't matter - he's not asked to be good defensively anyway.

Good, you should be done with Berard. He's fine in the role he's in. I just want to make sure we're all clear on his abilities

 

[Dreakmur]

Good, you should be done with Berard. He's fine in the role he's in. I just want to make sure we're all clear on his abilities

He's better than "fine" in the role he's in. In your list of PP quarterbacks, he one of the top couple. That's better than "fine" - that's "elite".

 

[seventieslord]

He's better than "fine" in the role he's in. In your list of PP quarterbacks, he one of the top couple. That's better than "fine" - that's "elite".

Keep in mind that all the PP points he and others got is very proportional to the PP time they got - there aren't many outliers there.

 

[Dreakmur]

Keep in mind that all the PP points he and others got is very proportional to the PP time they got - there aren't many outliers there.

That is one of the many factors. In addition to a player's skill, their powerplay production can be impacted by playing time, team mates, coaching, and a number of other factors.

 

[seventieslord]

That is one of the many factors. In addition to a player's skill, their powerplay production can be impacted by playing time, team mates, coaching, and a number of other factors.

For sure. My point is just that, similar to how 4th lines in the MLD are really not much different offensively when you break it down, MLD defensemen have more or less the same PP ability and the points they got on the PP in real life were not much more than a function of the PP time they got. Of course, we'd rather have the guys who actually have more experience doing it - it makes them a safer bet. But the extent to which they might outproduce others (who only had fewer PP points in real life because they had less PP time) has probably been overestimated.

 

[seventieslord]

using a data set of 4502 instances of a defenseman playing at least 60 games in a post-expansion season:

correlation between PP time and PP points: 0.95
- extremely strong. Clear link.

correlation between PP time and "hockey card stats", i.e. total points: 0.85.

- very strong, clear link. When we judge a defenseman's offensive worth solely by their "hockey card stats", we are mostly judging them on the fact that they were on the PP.

correlation between ES points and PP points: 0.55

- just because you're a good ES producer doesn't mean you're a good PP producer, and vice versa

correlation between ES points and PP time: 0.56

- there's not a very good link indicating that a player "earns" PP time by being a strong ES producer.

 

[Dreakmur]

For sure. My point is just that, similar to how 4th lines in the MLD are really not much different offensively when you break it down, MLD defensemen have more or less the same PP ability and the points they got on the PP in real life were not much more than a function of the PP time they got. Of course, we'd rather have the guys who actually have more experience doing it - it makes them a safer bet. But the extent to which they might outproduce others (who only had fewer PP points in real life because they had less PP time) has probably been overestimated.

The gap between all players is smaller in the MLD. That doesn't reduce the impact of those gaps.

 

[Dreakmur]

using a data set of 4502 instances of a defenseman playing at least 60 games in a post-expansion season:

correlation between PP time and PP points: 0.95
- extremely strong. Clear link.

correlation between PP time and "hockey card stats", i.e. total points: 0.85.

- very strong, clear link. When we judge a defenseman's offensive worth solely by their "hockey card stats", we are mostly judging them on the fact that they were on the PP.

correlation between ES points and PP points: 0.55

- just because you're a good ES producer doesn't mean you're a good PP producer, and vice versa

correlation between ES points and PP time: 0.56

- there's not a very good link indicating that a player "earns" PP time by being a strong ES producer.

This is you trying to trick people who don't understand that correlation doesn't mean causality.

 

[seventieslord]

The gap between all players is smaller in the MLD. That doesn't reduce the impact of those gaps.

of course it does.

This is you trying to trick people who don't understand that correlation doesn't mean causality.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you explain this better?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

This is you trying to trick people who don't understand that correlation doesn't mean causality.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it is evidence of possible causality.

An r-squared of .90 takes some seriously explaining if you want to suggest that PP time does not cause PP points, for example.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not a stats expert. Does a correlation of 0.85 between PP time and "hockey card stats" mean the r-squared is 0.7225? And what does that mean for the relation between the two fields of data?

 

[Dreakmur]

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it is evidence of possible causality.

Just like being overweight causes gingavitis? (junk food causes both!)

Or maybe that having a better tan cause you to be more fit? (being outside causes both!)

Correlation proves nothing other than there is an unkown link. The cause for that link is unknown.

An r-squared of .90 takes some seriously explaining if you want to suggest that PP time does not cause PP points, for example.

PP time does contribute greatly to PP points. Having said that, being offensively skilled contributes greatly to getting PP time. That means that being offensively skilled causes a player to be put in the situation that cause PP points.....

For 70s to claim that players only get PP points because they get PP ice time is rediculous. I'm sure it has nothing to do with him having very weak offensive defensemen to man his powerplay....

 

[seventieslord]

I'm sure it has nothing to do with him having very weak offensive defensemen to man his powerplay....

ZOMG DONT TELL EVERY1 MY AWFUL SECRET!!!!11!!!

You're right, it doesn't actually have anything to do with that. I am doubleshifting Sargent for more than just the reason that he can handle it and is good. It's because there's no one else suitable. And Barry Gibbs is definitely a weak PP defenseman.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I'm not a stats expert. Does a correlation of 0.85 between PP time and "hockey card stats" mean the r-squared is 0.7225? And what does that mean for the relation between the two fields of data?

That's right. It means that 72.25% of the variation in hockey card stats can be explained by variation in PP time IIRC.

 

[seventieslord]

That's right. It means that 72.25% of the variation in hockey card stats can be explained by variation in PP time IIRC.

That passes the smell test.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Just like being overweight causes gingavitis? (junk food causes both!)

Or maybe that having a better tan cause you to be more fit? (being outside causes both!)

Correlation proves nothing other than there is an unkown link. The cause for that link is unknown.

And seventies suggested one cause, am I right? You can't just say that correlation doesn't prove causation; if his suggestion is the most plausible then he's probably correct. You're not providing an alternate explanation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And seventies suggested one cause, am I right? You can't just say that correlation doesn't prove causation; if his suggestion is the most plausible then he's probably correct. You're not providing an alternate explanation.

The alternative explanation is that coaches pick the defensemen with the best powerplay skills to play on the powerplay.

 

[Dreakmur]

As for the PK, we'll take a look....

With Smith, Maloney, Rouse, and Stuart, Montreal does have a pretty solid group of PK defenseman. With Bert Marshall, Bill Brydge, and Eric Brewer, the No-Names have some good pieces too.

Bert Marshall and Jason Smith are basically a wash on the PK. If my team takes back-to-back penalties, or if we're in a rough game, Marshall will likely get tired, so he will be a little less effective. With my team make-up, I don't think that will happen very often.

Bill Brydge and Dave Maloney are also pretty much a wash. Maloney seems to have been quite over-rated in this draft. Like Vail, I wanted Maloney going into the draft, but, also like Vail, the more I look at him, the less impressed I am.

Eric Brewer and Bob Rouse, I think, should be an advantage to Rouse. Brewer is clearly the better overall player, but Rouse is built for the PK.

Brad Stuart isn't a great PKer, but he's better than a mix of Bert Marshall and Tom Bladon.

Overall, Montreal does have the better PK defenseman but that gap isn't as wide as I originally thought.




With Zhamnov, Gionta, Gee, and Laperriere, Montreal has a very weak group of PK forwards. With Marchant, Cotton, Kennedy, and Chamberlain, I think the No-Names have one of the best groups of PK forwards in the draft.... maybe the best.

I don't think I should even have to talk about this one. The difference is huge. My extra PK unit of Gomez and Schinkel is arguably better than anything Montreal can ice.



Overall PK should be in the No-Names' advantage. The differene in forwards by far outweights the difference in defensemen.

 

[seventieslord]

The alternative explanation is that coaches pick the defensemen with the best powerplay skills to play on the powerplay.

that obviously plays a part in it, but how much is definitely up for debate. The lack of differentiation in production rates between the majority of defensemen tells me "if you play on the PP you'll score".

 

[seventieslord]

Like Vail, I wanted Maloney going into the draft, but, also like Vail, the more I look at him, the less impressed I am.

I must agree.