Patrik Laine Part II: The Man Wants All the Hats
- Thread starter wpgsilver
- Start date
- Status
Can someone explain why shooting-% is the one stat that is expected to equal out and became average for every player? Why is every shot created the same, but we are not really expecting save % of different goalies to equal out, nor are we expecting that for example Brad Marchand's SAT stats to be unsustainable?
Is shooting a puck really just like buying a lottery ticket or rolling a dice? Not a skill that could be different with different players? Is only skilled involved in scoring goals the ability to get a chance to shoot? And after the player uses his skills to get a shooting chance, then the outcome of that shot is just like rolling a dice, everyone will have a same shooting% in long run?
Is shooting a puck really just like buying a lottery ticket or rolling a dice? Not a skill that could be different with different players? Is only skilled involved in scoring goals the ability to get a chance to shoot? And after the player uses his skills to get a shooting chance, then the outcome of that shot is just like rolling a dice, everyone will have a same shooting% in long run?
I'd say it's because shooting % has several equalizing feedback mechanism built into it.
As the quality of a player's shot gets better, it makes logical sense to take shots from increasingly worse locations, which should pull the % of any smart player down. Having a great shot should translate to also taking more shots.
As the quality of a player's shot gets better, the goalies will try to "cheat" against him, decreasing the % of shot (and consecutively increasing the chance of successful goal after a pass).
They don't all have the same Sh%, but there are general "ranges" that players fall into.
Kaako Kappo
Kaako Kappo
Must have stole them from his girlfriend .
They probably don't share the same shoe size
That majority fall into. Not all.
And then there's the exceptions who have their own range just like in any aspect of any sport.
That is why I don't like the "unsustainable" argument, at all. People making that argument do not know any better what will be sustainable for an individual we don't have enough data from yet. Not everyone falls into average category.
Kaako Kappo
Kaako Kappo
Shazzam
Now 20% Chunkier
Had to laugh at Laine's comments the other day about his own goal. "Shyte" happens. LOL
I'm not sure if he fully appreciates that the word is considered a swear word and that it will be bleeped out.
I'm not sure if he fully appreciates that the word is considered a swear word and that it will be bleeped out.
That depends on how you define the ranges. I can certainly setup the ranges so that ALL players fall into a range.
Right. Which is a range, as you state.
I made no argument regarding unsustainable, nor did I make any statement regarding average. There's an average Sh%, then you can stratify the ranges above and below that, much like a bell curve. The exceptions on the good/bad side lie on the extremes.
But they can still be defined as ranges. Semantics, but thought I'd clarify my comment, since you took some exception to it.
"Unsustainable" seems to be the main argument for toronto/matthews fanboys to downplay laine.
Somehow Stamkos has managed to stay clearly above average Sh% for his career thus far, over 17% career Sh%. I have no doubt that this will be topped too, absolutely. Is it laine or somebody else, well, can't say anything yet.
Somehow Stamkos has managed to stay clearly above average Sh% for his career thus far, over 17% career Sh%. I have no doubt that this will be topped too, absolutely. Is it laine or somebody else, well, can't say anything yet.
The thing is, I don't think this far these 'equalizing mechanics' have really played into it with Laine - except for goalies starting to take extra care to take away his shot. I haven't watched all Jets games, but I haven't seen Laine taking a lot of shots, quite the opposite. This far most of the shots he's been taking have been ones that are high quality scoring chances for him. I see he could and should shoot more, which would probably bring his shooting percentage down some, but I'd also imagine he'd get more goals that way, + assists for goals from rebounds. With his release, shooting even when he doesn't think there's a genuine scoring chance should still result in some 'lucky' goals and generate a lot of rebounds.
How many goals has he had that could be considered lucky bounces or 'dirty'? I can recall maybe 1 or 2 off the top of my head, but my memory is not perfect so I suppose it's safe to assume there might be a couple more, but most of his goals have been really high quality aimed shots. (Aside from redirects etc. of course)
I think he'll be shooting more in the future, once he is more established in his team (and more ready as a player) I'd expect him to start playing a more 'selfish' game. If he doesn't get there himself, I'm sure at some point the coaches will start telling him to shoot the puck more if they don't already.
RageQuit77
Registered User
I "love" that Unsustainability-argument too. I agree fully with statistics, but I do not agree what they are allegedly supposed to mean. I expect Laine's long term Sh% will go downwards in longer run, but I do not draw that assumption from the statistics.
People who use stats as an argument, use them generally speaking "upside down", particularly so if they are stats that are derived not only from a player's performances, but also what happens around him, regardless of him. That sucks. Fault is not in the stats per se, it's primarily how they are interpreted. Laine's case is good example for that as argument for "luck" here looks simply ridiculous. (including that own goal)
I'm pessimist but I must agree with (very optimistic) Psycho_Dad that in the extreme case of individual the one must first check premises of the stats before straightforward application of their results to the practice.
How long odds have to be defied on the ice before adequate corrections to a formula of a stats will happen? (error is in the stats, not in the play on ice if a statistical anomaly cannot be otherwise explained)
In other words, stats guys claim that only 20% of hockey cannot be adequately put to formulas. What happens when an individual plays within that 20%? Was - for example - Lemieux, Hull (both), Gretzky, Orr... within the realm of perfect jurisdiction and subjugation of hockey stats when they played?
To defy odds... rather many hockey legends of the hockey history managed to do so in the past, few are doing so currently. Why Laine's case would be categorically different? Why any individual hockey player's case would be different?
Statistical analysis can set only some kind of limits for what can be reasonably expected to be happen on the ice, not for what can happen on the ice.
People who use stats as an argument, use them generally speaking "upside down", particularly so if they are stats that are derived not only from a player's performances, but also what happens around him, regardless of him. That sucks. Fault is not in the stats per se, it's primarily how they are interpreted. Laine's case is good example for that as argument for "luck" here looks simply ridiculous. (including that own goal)
I'm pessimist but I must agree with (very optimistic) Psycho_Dad that in the extreme case of individual the one must first check premises of the stats before straightforward application of their results to the practice.
How long odds have to be defied on the ice before adequate corrections to a formula of a stats will happen? (error is in the stats, not in the play on ice if a statistical anomaly cannot be otherwise explained)
In other words, stats guys claim that only 20% of hockey cannot be adequately put to formulas. What happens when an individual plays within that 20%? Was - for example - Lemieux, Hull (both), Gretzky, Orr... within the realm of perfect jurisdiction and subjugation of hockey stats when they played?
To defy odds... rather many hockey legends of the hockey history managed to do so in the past, few are doing so currently. Why Laine's case would be categorically different? Why any individual hockey player's case would be different?
Statistical analysis can set only some kind of limits for what can be reasonably expected to be happen on the ice, not for what can happen on the ice.
Deif
Registered User
- Sep 20, 2014
- 2,418
- 40
wow does he have ugg boots
Uggs?? Dear God! Someone get this man some shoes
Now that i think of it , in that picture of him and his girlfriend by a lake , he had those god awful shower shoes on .... and SOCKS . He definitely needs help picking out shoes .
behemolari
Registered User
- Dec 1, 2011
- 6,029
- 2,547
writer of this blog clearly has not followed Laine more than couple of months, this "unsustainable shooting percentage" factor was saturating long time ago..
http://www.iltasanomat.fi/sm-liiga/art-2000001164809.html
- Feb 23, 2014
- 26,886
- 83,833
For the s% to fall to sustainable level, one of two things should happen:
1) Laine will keep shooting similar amount of shots, but those shots are going in less often, or
2) Laine will start shooting more, but the shots will not be amounting to goals in the same ratio.
I have hard time coming up with a plausible scenario how either of these is going to happen. The opponents will seek to outplay Laine away from his sweet spots? The goalies are going to become better against him? Despite continuous practising he's just going to turn into poorer shot? Clock strikes twelve and he turns into Olli Jokinen?
?
1) Laine will keep shooting similar amount of shots, but those shots are going in less often, or
2) Laine will start shooting more, but the shots will not be amounting to goals in the same ratio.
I have hard time coming up with a plausible scenario how either of these is going to happen. The opponents will seek to outplay Laine away from his sweet spots? The goalies are going to become better against him? Despite continuous practising he's just going to turn into poorer shot? Clock strikes twelve and he turns into Olli Jokinen?
?
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
GDT: ECQF: Game 6 - Toronto Maple Leafs Vs Boston Bruins, 8 p.m. ET, TBS- Latest: Martin Skoula
-
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
GAME 5 - Cape Breton Eagles @ Baie-Comeau Drakkar - Baie-Comeau Drakkar leads series 3-1Wagers: 2Staked: $75.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Rochester Americans @ Syracuse Crunch - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 3Staked: $535.00Event closes- Updated: