Ny Rangers put Brendan Smith on waivers

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Of course it does.
If I'm tracking AA vs Darren Helm, I'm far more likely to notice Helm's mistakes than AA's, or give AA credit in a place where I didn't give Helm credit.

It might not even be a bias about the players. Maybe someone might just recognize a certain style of play as more positive and a certain style as more negative. And who knows what styles mean in terms of quality of play?

No, it's a bias.

In no hockey game ever is float and hope for a breakout better than a forward backchecking. What truly successful hockey team was built on run-and-gun other than maybe teams in the 1980s (Oilers, mostly)?

A guy like Sergei Fedorov was so amazing because while he was an offensive dynamo, you knew he was going to be involved in backchecking. Z and Dats were so amazing because they gave you PPG C play while also being Selke caliber defensively. On 90% of teams, having forwards who are capable of backchecking competently while also capable of break out plays are far superior.

 

[jkutswings]

No, it's a bias.

In no hockey game ever is float and hope for a breakout better than a forward backchecking. What truly successful hockey team was built on run-and-gun other than maybe teams in the 1980s (Oilers, mostly)?

A guy like Sergei Fedorov was so amazing because while he was an offensive dynamo, you knew he was going to be involved in backchecking. Z and Dats were so amazing because they gave you PPG C play while also being Selke caliber defensively. On 90% of teams, having forwards who are capable of backchecking competently while also capable of break out plays are far superior.

But you're also contrasting the ideal with the inferior, while the reality is much more "both/and" than "either/or".

On an individual basis, a guy who's great at both ends of the rink is better than a guy who doesn't backcheck, no question. But it's not like anybody has 12 forwards that are perennial candidates for both the Art Ross and the Selke, and it's not like you can't be successful in having a wide variety of players, each of whom possess a unique degree and blend of those attributes.

Even just within one line combination, Detroit could have a guy like Larkin busting his hump at both ends of the ice, but not being elite at either end, while somebody like Mantha could grow into being a better offensive player than Larkin, yet less effective on defense, and pair them both with a good 3rd player, who has yet another unique combination of skills, and have a great line.

I wouldn't exactly call Patrick Kane a virtuoso at backchecking, but Chicago managed to use his talent, in combination with the right additional players, to have an overall great mix that won multiple Cups.

Each team uses their strengths as best they can, whether that's elite two-way centers, with good defense, or the other way around, or solid players at both forward and defense, with a HoF goalie. So yes, in a vacuum, a forward who is great all over the rink wins out, but when it comes to assembling the entire cast, there are lots of ways to bake a cake, so to speak.

 

[newfy]

Smith was a weird one. I remember when I watched him in person, he really was a player that IMO stuck out as he seemed to drive the action. The issue with him, was it seemed to never lead to anything. He would get the puck in his own end, bring it up the ice and then just doing nothing with it by either losing it, shooting the puck wide, or missing a pass. The kid had talent, but just didnt know who to make it all work. I dont know, maybe he is a case of someone who was talented, but just didnt have hockey sense.

This is true. A lot of people hated Smith because he didnt pan out as high as they hoped so he was consistently scrutinised on here. But he was always pretty good in transition. He could either skate the puck up through the neutral zone or move it pretty quick up ice. He didnt get a lot of points because he wasnt great in the offensive end but he really transitioned the neutral zone well and thats what led to his good advanced stats. He also made a lot of bone headed plays BUT those got blown out of proportion a bit I think because people didnt like him. Its the same way how Ericcson still takes shit on here even though hes having his best season in 5 years probably.

He wasnt worth that contract and I'm glad the wings got what they dd for him but Smith also wasnt as bad as people made him out to be. He always brought it in the playoffs too which is more than a lot of the guys on this team after Datsyuk and Zetterberg could say.

 

[BinCookin]

I just can't shake the feeling that subconscious bias affects the way you judge a player's +/-. There's no shortage of studies and papers detailing countless ways that we are not that reliable as eyewitnesses. Even when we really try. Even when we think there's no way we aren't being objective.

That's why I tend to favor analytics that take subjectivity out of it.

Well, no offense, but "positive play" and "negative play" isn't exactly an objective stat.

That said, I think Corsi is a dumb stat that a lot of supposedly "smart" people hang themselves with on a regular basis.

Obviously I know my "stats" are not binding in some way.
All I can really say is that its a numerical representation of the eye test. (Which is of course impossible to be unbiased)
I am simply providing "additional" information.

I can say this though.. All the players who were at the bottom of my stats, have been traded off the team.
So I think practically there is some evidence that management seems to have a similar opinion. (whether you like it or not)

 

[Flowah]

I can say this though.. All the players who were at the bottom of my stats, have been traded off the team.
So I think practically there is some evidence that management seems to have a similar opinion. (whether you like it or not)

And the #1 player is on the chopping block now.

It's hard to say whether the players traded were traded because they were good, bad, or because they were the only ones that a deal could be made around with other teams.

 

[Redder Winger]

No, it's a bias.

In no hockey game ever is float and hope for a breakout better than a forward backchecking. What truly successful hockey team was built on run-and-gun other than maybe teams in the 1980s (Oilers, mostly)?

A guy like Sergei Fedorov was so amazing because while he was an offensive dynamo, you knew he was going to be involved in backchecking. Z and Dats were so amazing because they gave you PPG C play while also being Selke caliber defensively. On 90% of teams, having forwards who are capable of backchecking competently while also capable of break out plays are far superior.

Wooosh.

 

[BinCookin]

And the #1 player is on the chopping block now.

It's hard to say whether the players traded were traded because they were good, bad, or because they were the only ones that a deal could be made around with other teams.

"On the chopping block" because he is our best D man, and we are rebuilding.

I think my point stands.


For those who don't like my project of recording eye test stats... ignore it as a pointless venture.
For those who think the data is useful... good.

I am simply sharing.
take it for whatever you like

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

But you're also contrasting the ideal with the inferior, while the reality is much more "both/and" than "either/or".

On an individual basis, a guy who's great at both ends of the rink is better than a guy who doesn't backcheck, no question. But it's not like anybody has 12 forwards that are perennial candidates for both the Art Ross and the Selke, and it's not like you can't be successful in having a wide variety of players, each of whom possess a unique degree and blend of those attributes.

Even just within one line combination, Detroit could have a guy like Larkin busting his hump at both ends of the ice, but not being elite at either end, while somebody like Mantha could grow into being a better offensive player than Larkin, yet less effective on defense, and pair them both with a good 3rd player, who has yet another unique combination of skills, and have a great line.

I wouldn't exactly call Patrick Kane a virtuoso at backchecking, but Chicago managed to use his talent, in combination with the right additional players, to have an overall great mix that won multiple Cups.

Each team uses their strengths as best they can, whether that's elite two-way centers, with good defense, or the other way around, or solid players at both forward and defense, with a HoF goalie. So yes, in a vacuum, a forward who is great all over the rink wins out, but when it comes to assembling the entire cast, there are lots of ways to bake a cake, so to speak.

Absolutely. But I am saying it is ludicrous in the way Redder just said that he gives AA a pass on things that he hammers Helm for. Like somehow it is acceptable that a guy with all the physical tools to play defense just doesn't and it is less a strike against him than if a guy makes a mistake in actually playing that role. To be okay with a guy in a no defense role, he's got to be so damn good on the offensive side that it nullifies his defensive shortcomings. Like Alex Ovechkin early in his career. He was SUCH an overwhelming offensive presence that it was far less important that he played tight checking defense.

It just seems, with the repeated posting of p/60 stats and all that, that posts like Redder's are completely discounting defensive contributions as a thing. Yes, in a total team building thing, you need all kinds. You need snipers and playmakers and two way guys. But just because a two way guy has less points than a sniper does not indicate that he's a worse player. He's doing different things on the ice. And if Helm's mistakes are more noticeable, it means he is being given heavier responsibilities.

And hell, in this year... offensively, Darren Helm is 4 points behind AA in one half hour less of total game time.

My main point was just that a guy like AA who is below par defensively would need to be exceptional offensively to offset.. And he's not. He's really good offensively, but there is a reason he was only getting 14 minutes a night before this year.

Wooosh.

I'm done with you. No idea what the hell you're "wooshing" me about. There is no discussion to ever happen with you. It's "I have data and if you don't just agree with my data that is displayed in no relevant context, you're wrong and I'm going to ignore everything you say". It is certainly a bias for or against a guy.

 

[jkutswings]

On a very general level, I could see the other side of that coin, though. If a player has very little creativity with the puck, and is where offense goes to die, then he'd better be darn near flawless in terms of defensive responsibility.

In this specific instance, that still doesn't absolve AA of being inconsistent on offense while being poor on defense, but as a general point, I can understand the thinking.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Ericsson would be in the AHL on a couple of teams..

eh, maybe but I doubt it, depending on his contract. At the very least he'd be traded or picked up off waivers. He'd make a good 5/6 dman on most teams in the league.

 

[Redder Winger]

"On the chopping block" because he is our best D man, and we are rebuilding.

I think my point stands.


For those who don't like my project of recording eye test stats... ignore it as a pointless venture.
For those who think the data is useful... good.

I am simply sharing.
take it for whatever you like

Fair enough.
The way I see it, is this data is most useful to you, because YOU are grading it along YOUR values.
If anyone gets anything out of it, that's cool too.

To some degree, we're all doing this at some level when we watch games. But you've got numerical recordings.

 

[Redder Winger]

I'm done with you. No idea what the hell you're "wooshing" me about. There is no discussion to ever happen with you. It's "I have data and if you don't just agree with my data that is displayed in no relevant context, you're wrong and I'm going to ignore everything you say". It is certainly a bias for or against a guy.

I'm so sad that I will no longer be conversing with the guy who doesn't even bother to try and understand my posts before jumping down my throat.

My post was saying that yeah, because I like AA and dislike, to a certain degree, Helm, my own bias would like influence any sort of attempt to record positives and negatives.

Further more, it's not just about biases about certain players.
Certain people might prefer a certain style of game and not like another style of game.

Someone might see a big hit as a great thing. Someone else might see that hit as a guy blowing defensive coverage.
Someone might see a defenseman pinching in as a good thing. Others might see it as dangerous

But since you're so damn biased against everything I post, you decided to make it about something else.

Which is kind of awesome really. Because you proved my point.
Since you won't be responding, I'll thank you now.

 

[BinCookin]

On a very general level, I could see the other side of that coin, though. If a player has very little creativity with the puck, and is where offense goes to die, then he'd better be darn near flawless in terms of defensive responsibility.

In this specific instance, that still doesn't absolve AA of being inconsistent on offense while being poor on defense, but as a general point, I can understand the thinking.

AA has 24 pts in 44 GP
Helm has 20pts in 47 GP.

I would say that these 2 players are close in offensive production.

1 is not amazing, while the other is not "where offensee goes to die"

these 2 players are (for better or worse) comparable offensively.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

On a very general level, I could see the other side of that coin, though. If a player has very little creativity with the puck, and is where offense goes to die, then he'd better be darn near flawless in terms of defensive responsibility.

In this specific instance, that still doesn't absolve AA of being inconsistent on offense while being poor on defense, but as a general point, I can understand the thinking.

Yes. Pretty much I'm saying this.

Let's just give general grades for something.

Alex Ovechkin was an A+ offensively. Since he's so good, Trotz or whoever are okay with a C-, D level of defense from him.
As a defenseman, Marc Edouard Vlasic is an A+ defensively. Since he's so good at shutting things down, the Sharks are okay with him putting up C level offensive game.

Those are exceptions at the far end of the scale. Their overwhelming skill in one area makes the other area almost a non factor.

But if you're merely a B or B- offensive player, you don't get to get away with D level defense. If you aren't truly elite at one aspect of the game, you need to have balance in your style. Like, nobody bagged on Homer for not backchecking... because he was so ****ing good as net front for guys who did it well. No reasonable person bagged on Kris Draper and Kirk Maltby not lighting up the score sheet because they were so good at the fourth line duties. But people lambasted the hell out of Bobby Lang or Ray Sheppard or Paul Ysebaert. You can be a role player and do your role exceptionally well, but you will never be a star. If AA wants to be a star, he needs to do more than just be a good offensive player.

That is all I'm saying. No matter what the rate stats say, AA is not good enough offensively that you can handwave away his defensive foibles if you want to talk about him being more than a 2nd/3rd line tweener. Hell, maybe he even gets there offensively. He just isn't there now.

 

[Redder Winger]

AA has 24 pts in 44 GP
Helm has 20pts in 47 GP.

I would say that these 2 players are close in offensive production.

1 is not amazing, while the other is not "where offensee goes to die"

these 2 players are (for better or worse) comparable offensively.

Points/60 at 5 on 5
AA is at 2.07 - 2nd on the team to Bertuzzi.
Helm is at 1.4 - 11th on the team.


Weird numbers, considering their proximity in points. Probably because Helm has some PK points.

What's killing this team is the powerplay.

You expect the defense to suck, based on personnell and the play of the goalies.

But this team's powerplay ought to be better.

 

[kliq]

Points/60 at 5 on 5
AA is at 2.07 - 2nd on the team to Bertuzzi.
Helm is at 1.4 - 11th on the team.


Weird numbers, considering their proximity in points. Probably because Helm has some PK points.

What's killing this team is the powerplay.

You expect the defense to suck, based on personnell and the play of the goalies.

But this team's powerplay ought to be better.

I think there is no doubt that AA is better offensively then Helm, but I am very leery of the Points/60 stat. This stat essentially dismisses the skill/conditioning involved with keeping up a high level of play when you play more minutes pergame.

I think it it fair to say that if a player is playing 10min a night, that it is not a given that he will double that production if he plays 20min a game. I believe that a player like AA would see a decrease in P/60 as his minutes rise. Not a useless stat or anything, but it doesn't paint the full picture.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

eh, maybe but I doubt it, depending on his contract. At the very least he'd be traded or picked up off waivers. He'd make a good 5/6 dman on most teams in the league.

If he were on Tampa he would be in the AHL. If he were on Arizona. Probably higher then now. Depends on the team.

 

[jkutswings]

I think there is no doubt that AA is better offensively then Helm, but I am very leery of the Points/60 stat. This stat essentially dismisses the skill/conditioning involved with keeping up a high level of play when you play more minutes pergame.

I think it it fair to say that if a player is playing 10min a night, that it is not a given that he will double that production if he plays 20min a game. I believe that a player like AA would see a decrease in P/60 as his minutes rise. Not a useless stat or anything, but it doesn't paint the full picture.

Completely agree. Any stat that paints Bertuzzi as the best on the team for scoring, clearly doesn't capture the entire picture.

Just as I'm not holding up zone starts as the end-all, be-all, I'm not going to the other extreme and completely ignoring usage, either. Each is a piece to the puzzle, not the answer by itself.

For instance, overall, I think AA is a much more talented and creative player on offense than Helm. But he's also much less disciplined (at both ends of the ice). Advanced stats can often point to the degree of success a given player is having within a set of circumstances, but do not necessarily explain WHY (which is sometimes answered by the eye test).

 

[Redder Winger]

I think there is no doubt that AA is better offensively then Helm, but I am very leery of the Points/60 stat. This stat essentially dismisses the skill/conditioning involved with keeping up a high level of play when you play more minutes pergame.

I think it it fair to say that if a player is playing 10min a night, that it is not a given that he will double that production if he plays 20min a game. I believe that a player like AA would see a decrease in P/60 as his minutes rise. Not a useless stat or anything, but it doesn't paint the full picture.

That's possible. But I doubt it's the case with AA.
I think we've seen that AA is pretty productive when he plays a lot.

In games where he plays 18+ minutes
13 games 8-7-15.

 

[kliq]

That's possible. But I doubt it's the case with AA.
I think we've seen that AA is pretty productive when he plays a lot.

In games where he plays 18+ minutes
13 games 8-7-15.

Do you think he could keep up that points/60 if he played 20+ min for 82 games?

 

[HIFE]

That's possible. But I doubt it's the case with AA.
I think we've seen that AA is pretty productive when he plays a lot.

In games where he plays 18+ minutes
13 games 8-7-15.

It's probably true with most players but especially Athanasiou- it seems like he needs consistent shifts to get a proper feel for the puck/game. Inevitably after 3 periods something's going in. The past few games have been strange though. No matter the TOI he's having trouble settling the puck or making clean plays. I was wondering if he and Larkin are starting to run out of steam a bit.

 

[TheMule93]

Again, im not surprised Athanasiou is given more ice time when he's playing well

 

[Nut Upstrom]

"It's probably true with most players but especially Athanasiou- it seems like he needs consistent shifts to get a proper feel for the puck/game. Inevitably after 3 periods something's going in. The past few games have been strange though. No matter the TOI he's having trouble settling the puck or making clean plays. I was wondering if he and Larkin are starting to run out of steam a bit."

Playing more minutes in more demanding situations will do that to a player. How dreadful, this may impact his sparkling points/60 stat.

 

[Ezekial]

So in the 31 games he's played less than 18 mins a night he's 2-7-9, let's take out the 5 games he played less than 12 mins, with no points. So 26 games between 12-18 mins with 2-7-9? Sounds like Blash plays him more when he's playing well.

 

[Redder Winger]

Do you think he could keep up that points/60 if he played 20+ min for 82 games?

Sure.
Would he? I don't know.
But I can tell you that it's pretty obvious that he's produced when he's played more.
Andreas Athanasiou 2017-18 Game Log | Hockey-Reference.com
Sort by Time On Ice.

Some guys play better the more they play. They're more engaged.