AfroThunder396
[citation needed]
Who gives a shit about the draft pick, no one here has a time machine. Zacha is the guy the Devils have and he's turning into a very nice player.
Pavel Zacha
- Thread starter Absolut
- Start date
Was it a “bad” pick relative to the many star players picked after him? Yes. But overall, it’s not a “bad” pick in a draft sense. You could do much worse than a jack of all trades bottom 6 guy. His trajectory is pointing up right now carrying over his play from the last 15 or so games last year until now. If Zacha was picked in the 20s, no one would even think twice. The bust narrative got so blown out of portion that some were acting like he wasn’t an NHL caliber player which is incredibly false. Even if his game stagnates to where it is right now, I’m sure most teams would love him on their bottom 6. He’s going to carve out a very solid NHL career.
KovalchukFistPump
Too lazy to change username
At least his shitty play over the last three years meant we got him on a pretty cheap contract. If he turns into a defensively-responsible 40-50 pt center, that's well worth the 2.3M he gets paid over the next three years. Of course, the team needs to use actually use that cap space wisely.
Tripod
I hate this team
Always a believer and even as a #3C, can be an important cog on the Devils. Him taking harder minutes will be very valuable to Nico and Hughes going forward as they can get easier ones.
If you look at his points, it's stagnant at 24, 25, 25. But games played show something different because he has missed some.
3 years ago 28 point pace
2 year ago 30 point pace
last year 34 point pace
So it's nothing groundbreaking, but it is improvement and he is just not an offense guy. He is good defensively and good on the PK. That doesn't show up in easy to look at stats, but teams value and need those players.
Couturier never paced for more than 40 points until his 5th season...then jumped to 42 and 52 pace for 2 years...then on to 76 point seasons. So maybe Zacha will have a similar path. Even if he gets to that 40-50 range that will be a very good player for the Devils.
If you look at his points, it's stagnant at 24, 25, 25. But games played show something different because he has missed some.
3 years ago 28 point pace
2 year ago 30 point pace
last year 34 point pace
So it's nothing groundbreaking, but it is improvement and he is just not an offense guy. He is good defensively and good on the PK. That doesn't show up in easy to look at stats, but teams value and need those players.
Couturier never paced for more than 40 points until his 5th season...then jumped to 42 and 52 pace for 2 years...then on to 76 point seasons. So maybe Zacha will have a similar path. Even if he gets to that 40-50 range that will be a very good player for the Devils.
, before I get into it, may I ask what context you’re referring to... the poster you quoted gave a sample size whereas you did not.Speaking is smaller samples- no, it’s not predictive. The bias in the data should be quite evident when comparing to historical data. A good basis for Corsi, in my opinion, is 1/3 of the season to really see where that player is.
The spread for a predictive stance should be small enough to account for outliers, unless the player goes on a tear offensively for 10+ games or so (they’re playing better than they normally do).
Do I agree, yes in the context that it doesn’t take a whole season, but I don’t really know where you stand since you never put up a platform
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
Speaking is smaller samples- no, it’s not predictive. The bias in the data should be quite evident when comparing to historical data. A good basis for Corsi, in my opinion, is 1/3 of the season to really see where that player is.
The spread for a predictive stance should be small enough to account for outliers, unless the player goes on a tear offensively for 10+ games or so (they’re playing better than they normally do).
Do I agree, yes in the context that it doesn’t take a whole season, but I don’t really know where you stand since you never put up a platform
Yes, the poster that I quoted gave a sample size. They said that Corsi requires at least one season's worth in order to be predictive. They did not add ANY context to that comment, so I didn't feel the need to add any context to mine.
You want a platform? Here is every team's 5-on-5 Corsi For % in October, and their corresponding point total at the end of the season.
The R^2 and p-value show you that while the predictive value of Corsi in just October not extremely strong, it still certainly does have predictive value and the R^2 for that predictive value is very significant at any confidence level. And remember, this is just October.
If you want to look at the interactive chart on Tableau, follow this link here.
Ummm, the R^2 is .14 which is quite horrible. If you want me to create a standardized model of what the regression accounts for, I will do so, but the variability of the data is not described by the regression: therefore, even in a predictive stance 14% of data accounted for in volatility doesn’t really give you an answer.Yes, the poster that I quoted gave a sample size. They said that Corsi requires at least one season's worth in order to be predictive. They did not add ANY context to that comment, so I didn't feel the need to add any context to mine.
You want a platform? Here is every team's 5-on-5 Corsi For % in October, and their corresponding point total at the end of the season.
The R^2 and p-value show you that while the predictive value of Corsi in just October not extremely strong, it still certainly does have predictive value and the R^2 for that predictive value is very significant at any confidence level. And remember, this is just October.
If you want to look at the interactive chart on Tableau, follow this link here.
While the P value suggests you can reject the sentiment of no correlation, the data points go against that because they’re pushing such a high volume of time-correlates data. You don’t need all of those sample sizes. That person who did the model seems to be unsure of their model, like a cook who drowns their food in a sauce to cover up any flavor discrepancies. Throw 2 data points up for each team then see what the line of best fit looks like. It surely won’t look like that.
Honestly, that model looks like a graph of Corsi-to-Points relationship and then someone just threw a line of best fit then used the parameters thing in Excel to gather statistical data. Kinda weird.
I will agree with you, but using ~18% of games to measure the impact that will have in your season leaves a lot of room for error.
I remember Craig Button saying this guy should be picked at the end of the 1st round at best
but he guaranteed he'd be picked in the top 10
but he guaranteed he'd be picked in the top 10
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
The point was that it only used such a small percentage of the games played. Literally just the month of October. And that it is still predictive even if the predictive value is as small as 14%.
I have no idea what you are talking about with your silly simile of a cook who drowns their food in a sauce and I have no idea why you are suggesting that you don't need sample sizes. Why not use all of the data that we have available to us?
Because it’s hard to tell if there actually is a correlation.
Look up random-walk simulations with 1000 data points, or better yet create one for yourself and see. If you come up with a hypothesis that the data is correlated and only show a line of best fit graph with disappointing metrics to analyze, it points to one thing—> it’s not a good model. That’s where the silly simile came from. It’s like a cook trying to make a nice steak, but is scared that it’s not good and drowns it in A1.
If ~18% of the year for a time-series data would predict point totals therefore giving you the impression that Corsi For has a strong sense in performance, just put up 2 or 3 data points per team. See what the line looks like then. If most of the data falls below the 14% margin, then it’s not a good model.
All the data points aren’t necessary for this considering most of the data falls outside what is explained by the regression.
Last edited:
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
He is a case of a prospect with tremendous raw skills but requiring his game to be built. There is a ton to like right now. A very good X's and O's coach would get the offense out of him. In the offensive zone all he is missing is some better positioning.
7even
Offered and lost
Man, I'd take him on my team in a heartbeat. That size, that defense, plays the center position where we are thin, he'd fit like a glove. Checks off a lot of boxes of need for us.
Craig Button LOL
He said it in his video on his mock draft and player rankings. He even had NJ taking him 6th
his player rankings had him 26
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 37,566
- 10,844
https://www.tsn.ca/craig-s-list-provorov-leaps-into-top-5-1.204945
Had Zacha ranked at #31 there.
https://www.tsn.ca/nhl-mock-draft-button-s-first-round-picks-1.316145
Had Zacha going at #6 here in a mock draft.
Tripod
I hate this team
Don't look now, Zacha is on a 40 point pace! I stand by what I said before.
How has he looked this year in getting those points?
- Apr 27, 2005
- 33,736
- 30,060
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
Not great but lately with Bratt and Gusev he looks great, he is driving holes with the puck and generally being more aggressive. then again Gusev is making whoever he plays with look great it seems. Everyone has confidence playing with him.
Hes on a crappy team, somebody has to put up points. Its the same as Duclair, Spooner etc.
Sure, but anoher top line is Hughes - Hischer - Palmiery, which doesn't score a lot of points "on a crappy team", and they should on paper...
Dr Black
Registered User
- Oct 31, 2015
- 482
- 368
Zacha got 2 goals tonight in a 3-0 win in Anaheim. This gives him 30 points for the season and 106 points over his career.
Yes, there were better players drafted after him. I can live with that so long as the player picked is a solid contributor and not a bust. He is a decent, serviceable 3rd line player. Not a superstar, but not a dud either. Certainly not a draft bust.
Yes, there were better players drafted after him. I can live with that so long as the player picked is a solid contributor and not a bust. He is a decent, serviceable 3rd line player. Not a superstar, but not a dud either. Certainly not a draft bust.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 9Staked: $11,200.00Event closes- Updated: