Player Discussion Pavel Buchnevich Part V

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm just asking if you have any tangible evidence about those three issues, and how they point to impacting Buch and the team.

His ass is in the press box. Thats my tangible evidence.

 

[silverfish]

His ass is in the press box. Thats my tangible evidence.

Girardi is playing top-pairing minutes every game. I guess he's a top-pairing d-man.

EDIT - This isn't strawman. Your tangible evidence is a decision AV made. Which means you're using AV as a infallible resource, and his decisions are ultimately right.

So, does playing G as a 1RD mean he's a 1RD? Or does AV maybe make some decisions that are poor?

Again, please feel free to ignore all of this.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Girardi is playing top-pairing minutes every game. I guess he's a top-pairing d-man.

EDIT - This isn't strawman. Your tangible evidence is a decision AV made. Which means you're using AV as a infallible resource, and his decisions are ultimately right.

So, does playing G as a 1RD mean he's a 1RD? Or does AV maybe make some decisions that are poor?

This is a false equivalence if I've ever seen one.

If this team was desperate for forwards, Im sure Buchnevich would be playing. This team is beyond desperate for right defensemen.

Then again, you might not find a metric that provides context to personnel and depth at each position, so you'll probably cast it aside. But its an actual real world issue that the coach has to deal with.

 

[silverfish]

This is a false equivalence if I've ever seen one.

If this team was desperate for forwards, Im sure Buchnevich would be playing. This team is beyond desperate for right defensemen.

Then again, you might not find a metric that provides context to personnel and depth at each position, so you'll probably cast it aside. But its an actual real world issue that the coach has to deal with.

You're missing the point.

Your tangible evidence that Buchnevich does those three things bad is because AV put him in the pressbox. The foundation of your argument, everything it is built on, is that you are right because AV says so.

How can you then turn around and discredit another decision AV makes? This is cake-eating. If you're discrediting a decision AV is making, then you're blowing up the foundation of your argument.

And there are literally hundreds of metrics that provide context to personnel and depth at each position. That is literally what metrics do. They provide context as to who is good and who is bad.

Girardi is the worst NYR RD in a lot of these metrics. Hence, in this context, Girardi is unequivocally not the Rangers best option at RD. Thus, this is a poor decision from AV.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You're missing the point.

Your tangible evidence that Buchnevich does those three things bad is because AV put him in the pressbox. The foundation of your argument, everything it is built on, is that you are right because AV says so.

How can you then turn around and discredit another decision AV makes? This is cake-eating. If you're discrediting a decision AV is making, then you're blowing up the foundation of your argument.

And there are literally hundreds of metrics that provide context to personnel and depth at each position. That is literally what metrics do. They provide context as to who is good and who is bad.

Girardi is the worst NYR RD in a lot of these metrics. Hence, in this context, Girardi is unequivocally not the Rangers best option at RD. Thus, this is a poor decision from AV.

All roads lead to Girardi on this board, as usual.

Anyway, I think I'll take you up on your offer to ignore this issue. I presented my opinion as to why Buchnevich isn't playing. He's weak, he's dogging it at times, and he's not very good on the defensive side of the puck. Perhaps we can continue this discussion if/when you're not thinking through the game like a robot.

 

[silverfish]

All roads lead to Girardi on this board, as usual.

Anyway, I think I'll take you up on your offer to ignore this issue. I presented my opinion as to why Buchnevich isn't playing. He's weak, he's dogging it at times, and he's not very good on the defensive side of the puck. Perhaps we can continue this discussion if/when you're not thinking through the game like a robot.

One more point that may help illustrate my position here. I circled back to Girardi because it is the obvious comparison.

You: Buch has been bad recently and I'm right because he's a healthy scratch.

What if someone popped into a thread and said:

Girardi has been good recently because AV plays him on the top-pairing.

The only difference in these two statements is that you agree with one and disagree with the other. But, both of their arguments have the same foundation. AV does this, so it's right.

All I wanted was for you to quantify your statements. You did. I just don't agree with your methodology.

 

[Lua]

One more point that may help illustrate my position here. I circled back to Girardi because it is the obvious comparison.

You: Buch has been bad recently and I'm right because he's a healthy scratch.

What if someone popped into a thread and said:

Girardi has been good recently because AV plays him on the top-pairing.

The only difference in these two statements is that you agree with one and disagree with the other. But, both of their arguments have the same foundation. AV does this, so it's right.

All I wanted was for you to quantify your statements. You did. I just don't agree with your methodology.

Not to impose, but I believe this is a poor representation of BRB's argument. I think he came to believe his three points on his own accord, and is using Buch's benching as evidence supporting his conclusions. It isn't like AV benched Buch and BRB invented these flaws to justify it because he presumes AV's infallibility. I see these flaws in Buch's game too. It looks like many do. It isn't fair to just call it a narrative.

On the topic of Buch, I'm fine with him watching a couple from the press box. Some of our young players have benefitted from a bit of tough love from AV.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Buch has gotta be back in Sunday, right?

Wouldn't mind Pirri back in for Oscar as well.

 

[RGY]

So now we are using the shot attempts against metric as the measurement to determine the real issues that Buch is blatantly having with his physical strength leading into his struggles with his play along the boards? Cmon this is getting ridiculous.

 

[silverfish]

Not to impose, but I believe this is a poor representation of BRB's argument. I think he came to believe his three points on his own accord, and is using Buch's benching as evidence supporting his conclusions. It isn't like AV benched Buch and BRB invented these flaws to justify it because he presumes AV's infallibility. I see these flaws in Buch's game too. It looks like many do. It isn't fair to just call it a narrative.

On the topic of Buch, I'm fine with him watching a couple from the press box. Some of our young players have benefitted from a bit of tough love from AV.

Then BRB should back up his points with more than: "I'm right because his ass is in the pressbox"

 

[RGY]

Buch has gotta be back in Sunday, right?

Wouldn't mind Pirri back in for Oscar as well.

Not to go too OT here but I think Lindberg has played well other than that awful awful coverage on the Islanders 1st goal.

Anyways, I think Buch and Pirri should get a look sunday. My fear though is having both those guys on your 4th line together because they are certainly not good defensively and coincidentally are both terrible getting in on the forecheck, tying up players and winning the BOARD BATTLE. At least Lindberg and to a lesser extent but still better Puempel are more effective in doing those things which is what you need from your 4th line

 

[YoSoyLalo]

Not to go too OT here but I think Lindberg has played well other than that awful awful coverage on the Islanders 1st goal.

Anyways, I think Buch and Pirri should get a look sunday. My fear though is having both those guys on your 4th line together because they are certainly not good defensively and coincidentally are both terrible getting in on the forecheck, tying up players and winning the BOARD BATTLE. At least Lindberg and to a lesser extent but still better Puempel are more effective in doing those things which is what you need from your 4th line

I thought Buchnevich-Pirri-Fast looked very good in their short time together.

 

[silverfish]

Not to go too OT here but I think Lindberg has played well other than that awful awful coverage on the Islanders 1st goal.

Anyways, I think Buch and Pirri should get a look sunday. My fear though is having both those guys on your 4th line together because they are certainly not good defensively and coincidentally are both terrible getting in on the forecheck, tying up players and winning the BOARD BATTLE. At least Lindberg and to a lesser extent but still better Puempel are more effective in doing those things which is what you need from your 4th line

"Buchnevich is certainly not good defensively"

Totally.

"Pirri is certainly not good defensively"

Makes more sense:

However, if you metric dive at all, you'll find that it was only when Pirri was playing with Vesey that his defensive game crumbled.

But that's none of my business.

 

[RGY]

I get you guys want to use metrics to discuss every aspect of a game, a team, a player, but as been said time and time again these metrics are not perfected and there are flaws to them. I really dont care what these charts are showing because there are other players/teammates and factors on the ice that make these flawable.

But sure Buch and Pirri are great defensively. Whatever. If you just want to go by metrics and not actually watching the damn game then id rather not argue about a chart with colors on it.

This is exactly why some here give the advanced metric crowd pushback. Because there is no in between for you people. This is becoming a one-way close minded way of thinking. Youre right and everyone else is wrong because the charts say so.

If this really were the case there would be no need for player evaluation. No need for scouts to physically watch a player to SEE for themselves if the metrics and stats match the actual player.

Done with this.

 

[silverfish]

I get you guys want to use metrics to discuss every aspect of a game, a team, a player, but as been said time and time again these metrics are not perfected and there are flaws to them. I really dont care what these charts are showing because there are other players/teammates and factors on the ice that make these flawable.

But sure Buch and Pirri are great defensively. Whatever. If you just want to go by metrics and not actually watching the damn game then id rather not argue about a chart with colors on it.

This is exactly why some here give the advanced metric crowd pushback. Because there is no in between for you people. This is becoming a one-way close minded way of thinking. Youre right and everyone else is wrong because the charts say so.

If this really were the case there would be no need for player evaluation. No need for scouts to physically watch a player to SEE for themselves if the metrics and stats match the actual player.

Done with this.

It's a chart showing where shots against are taken with that player on the ice vs. league average.

If that's not one part of how you quantify defense, how do you quantify defense? And obviously I agree 100% that teammates on ice matter, which is why I pointed out that Pirri was heavily influenced negatively while on a line with Vesey (and perhaps vice versa).

Tell me so we can bridge the gap.

Also the day when the "watch the game" people realize that the "stat people" watch more hockey than the "watch the game" people will be a great day for humanity.

I watch, on average, 1 NHL game per night, and 2 NWHL games per weekend. How much hockey do you watch, RGY? I've also watched most of the Rangers games this year twice. Once live, once the day after looking for things that I may have missed with a quick speed-through. Are my opinions now more relevant than yours?

No. They are not. That would be ridiculous.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I'm just asking if you have any tangible evidence about those three issues, and how they point to impacting Buch and the team.

I want PB to play next game. I think this team is better with PB on the ice. With that said not every positive (or negative) aspect in this game is represented by stats/metrics.

 

[silverfish]

I want PB to play next game. I think this team is better with PB on the ice. With that said not every positive (or negative) aspect in this game is represented by stats/metrics.

That's a totally fair assessment, but you've gotta believe that someone egregiously losing board battles and floating in the d-zone likely has bad shot attempt metrics, no?

 

[NickyFotiu]

That's a totally fair assessment, but you've gotta believe that someone egregiously losing board battles and floating in the d-zone likely has bad shot attempt metrics, no?

Possibly but I can not say that for every individual player in every situation. I do not believe everything in this game can be pointed to as a number or a chart. I think stats can be definitely helpful as a tool but they are just a tool. Remember Mark Twains famous quote

 

[RGY]

It's a chart showing where shots against are taken with that player on the ice vs. league average.

If that's not one part of how you quantify defense, how do you quantify defense? And obviously I agree 100% that teammates on ice matter, which is why I pointed out that Pirri was heavily influenced negatively while on a line with Vesey (and perhaps vice versa).

Tell me so we can bridge the gap.

Also the day when the "watch the game" people realize that the "stat people" watch more hockey than the "watch the game" people will be a great day for humanity.

I watch, on average, 1 NHL game per night, and 2 NWHL games per weekend. How much hockey do you watch, RGY? I've also watched most of the Rangers games this year twice. Once live, once the day after looking for things that I may have missed with a quick speed-through. Are my opinions now more relevant than yours?

No. They are not. That would be ridiculous.

eyjee, I know you are not one of the guys who just look at stats and dont watch games. Ive know this for a long time.

I am not saying the charts are irrelevant. I am not saying advanced stats are irrelevant in general. I think they are very helpful. But i dont think they are the end all be all. They should be a reference point because imo there is no clear cut definition of a player's defensive ability with those charts. For me its "ok i see what the charts are saying which are reative over a period of time based on certain circumstances now lets see if that translates on the ice"....and for me right now i just dont see the connection with Buch and Pirri and the charts. They dont look good defensively on the ice.

And i watch multiple games per night but I dont think that has much to do with the argument of watching the Rangers play.

 

[silverfish]

Possibly but I can not say that for every individual player in every situation. I do not believe everything in this game can be pointed to as a number or a chart. I think stats can be definitely helpful as a tool but they are just a tool. Remember Mark Twains famous quote

eyjee, I know you are not one of the guys who just look at stats and dont watch games. Ive know this for a long time.

I am not saying the charts are irrelevant. I am not saying advanced stats are irrelevant in general. I think they are very helpful. But i dont think they are the end all be all. They should be a reference point because imo there is no clear cut definition of a player's defensive ability with those charts. For me its "ok i see what the charts are saying which are reative over a period of time based on certain circumstances now lets see if that translates on the ice"....and for me right now i just dont see the connection with Buch and Pirri and the charts. They dont look good defensively on the ice.

And i watch multiple games per night but I dont think that has much to do with the argument of watching the Rangers play.

Both of these points are very, very fair.

Our ideologies are different. I trust the chart more than what I saw because I know that I can't remember all 100+ shot attempts that happen every night. I trust myself to remember the important ones, but I fear that leads me to a path of analysis where I only remember what sticks out in my mind rather than the game as a whole.

Let's bridge the gap together if we can.

 

[RGY]

Possibly but I can not say that for every individual player in every situation. I do not believe everything in this game can be pointed to as a number or a chart. I think stats can be definitely helpful as a tool but they are just a tool. Remember Mark Twains famous quote

I really dont want to get into this because I am trying (kinda) to get my work done, but...

Sabremetrics work much better imo for baseball. The game is just so much more straightforward than hockey, at least i think so. I think hockey has so many more dynamics and moving parts that happen during a shift on the ice. Yes players have labeled positions but they end up all over the ice required to do so many different actions while at a much quicker pace and less time for thinking or planning. I just dont think the charts can be 100% accurate or even 80% accurate to what a player truly is or provides.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Both of these points are very, very fair.

Our ideologies are different. I trust the chart more than what I saw because I know that I can't remember all 100+ shot attempts that happen every night. I trust myself to remember the important ones, but I fear that leads me to a path of analysis where I only remember what sticks out in my mind rather than the game as a whole.

Let's bridge the gap together if we can.

I think I understand your perspective regarding stats vs eyes. I just speak up when I think you occasionally lean too hard in one direction

 

[NickyFotiu]

I really dont want to get into this because I am trying (kinda) to get my work done, but...

Sabremetrics work much better imo for baseball. The game is just so much more straightforward than hockey, at least i think so. I think hockey has so many more dynamics and moving parts that happen during a shift on the ice. Yes players have labeled positions but they end up all over the ice required to do so many different actions while at a much quicker pace and less time for thinking or planning. I just dont think the charts can be 100% accurate or even 80% accurate to what a player truly is or provides.

Your post shows a lot of logic. I would hope that most people could see the reason behind your post.

 

[Irishguy42]

I love Pavel Buchnevich.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

I love Pavel Buchnevich.

Lmao, this kid rules