The Positivity Thread...

Status
Not open for further replies.

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,585
17,344
Is there even an argument in your post?

Do you have any numbers to back up what you're saying?

What is with you and obsession with numbers? This is why I can’t stand advanced stats. People who know very little about the game think a fancy stat can backup any argument when it’s usually flawed. Nothing about my post had anything to do with numbers anyways. It had to do with common sense and how the game is played.
 

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,585
17,344
I don’t want to speak for @nhlfan9191 but I believe his point is basically a puck moving defenceman isn’t just a guy who can “skate”. The term has to do more with a defenceman’s ability to transition play from defence to offence. If the defence is hemmed in their zone and forwards are basically forced to chase the puck around, there is no transition.

@nhlfan9191 also pointed out the turnover in such a short time period had much to do with this and this is something I agree with. The team basically lost 3 major puck movers in three seasons. PK just goes without saying. Markov, while getting long in tooth, was still effective and arguably would have been our #1 LHD last season. Beaulieu, for all his shortcomings and general lack of hockey IQ, was a decent puck-mover.

Of course, saying all this is one thing. Numbers support it.

Analyze This: Habs' lack of puck-moving rearguards stifling Pacioretty

The article (published after training camp last season) focuses on Pacioretty but you could extrapolate this and apply it to anyone really. I think we can all agree Pacioretty had a poor year by his standards and while he isn’t blameless, the statistics are obvious.



So, at least to me, stats backup the gist of the argument @nhlfan9191 made.

This is almost exactly what I was trying to portray. But it takes more critical thinking then pulling up stats. I’ve seen Belial posting in GDT’s and making comments on the games so I know he’s not just a stat watcher. What really makes me mad is when someone brings up if you have no numbers, you have no argument. There was a time not that long ago where people debated what they saw with their eyes, and I don’t think I feel the need to explain why a D core consisting of Weber, Petry, Alzner, Benn in our top 4 are so poor at moving the puck.
 

groovejuice

Without deviation progress is not possible
Jun 27, 2011
19,277
18,222
Calgary
Niemi played 19 games for us last year and 11 out of those games were against teams that made the PO.

The only really crappy teams he faced are Buffalo once and Detroit once.

So yeah what's the excuse now?

Just a few corrections. Niemi played close to half his games against non playoff teams, and because the opponent was Montreal, often with weaker lineups.

He actually played 20 games (as goalie of record) won 7 and lost 13 (4 in SO).
3.12 GAA .911 S%. Not sure why you're tooting his horn.
 

sandviper

No Ragrets
Jan 26, 2016
13,365
24,193
Toronto
This is almost exactly what I was trying to portray. But it takes more critical thinking then pulling up stats. I’ve seen Belial posting in GDT’s and making comments on the games so I know he’s not just a stat watcher. What really makes me mad is when someone brings up if you have no numbers, you have no argument. There was a time not that long ago where people debated what they saw with their eyes, and I don’t think I feel the need to explain why a D core consisting of Weber, Petry, Alzner, Benn in our top 4 are so poor at moving the puck.

No argument here since I thought your points were valid.

In regards to stats, if I can provide them, I will/would. What irks me is like you said, if I can’t give numbers, I got no argument but the reverse isn’t true? Supposedly our defence can hit tape to tape regularly and at a high success rate but I don’t see those stats either.

Anyhow, I get it... not everything can be supported with statistical evidence. Hockey is quite behind compared to other sports in this regard. However, advanced stats are quite valid. If I’m going to go on and insist Alzner is a rock and suppresses the opposition yet his CF% is below average, it doesn’t really matter he hits tape to tape passes at an imaginary stat of 100%. His CF% states he doesn’t control scoring chances when he is on the ice. However, let’s just pretend otherwise his transition game isn’t a problem.
 

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,585
17,344
No argument here since I thought your points were valid.

In regards to stats, if I can provide them, I will/would. What irks me is like you said, if I can’t give numbers, I got no argument but the reverse isn’t true? Supposedly our defence can hit tape to tape regularly and at a high success rate but I don’t see those stats either.

Anyhow, I get it... not everything can be supported with statistical evidence. Hockey is quite behind compared to other sports in this regard. However, advanced stats are quite valid. If I’m going to go on and insist Alzner is a rock and suppresses the opposition yet his CF% is below average, it doesn’t really matter he hits tape to tape passes at an imaginary stat of 100%. His CF% states he doesn’t control scoring chances when he is on the ice. However, let’s just pretend otherwise his transition game isn’t a problem.

I agree bringing statistics to a debate strengthens an argument. And I also agree that there are some legit stats that can tell a lot. Like you said earlier, hockey is way behind some of the other major sports when it comes to this. It’s like this league is trying to move towards analytics but they don’t fully trust them yet. Some teams rely on them heavily, some couldn’t be bothered at all, and some are somewhere in the middle. The problem I have with them is they’re easy to abuse, and that’s where my distaste for them came from. You have people manipulating them to make certain players seem worse or better then they really are. You also have fans who clearly aren’t watching the games talking or writing like they are when they clearly aren’t which is also annoying.

I’ll use one example that I think in my opinion will atleast paint a picture of where I’m coming from. HDS% gets used a lot on this board when it comes to goalies. I think it’s one of the silliest stats around. People will praise a goaltender for having a great high danger save % but the reality is, it doesn’t equate quality of shooters. It doesn’t even take in to account the shooter at all. Plekanec whiffing a puck into a goalies crest from the slot is tracked the same way as Ovechkin slapping one cross crease is. Just like Weber shooting the puck up from the blueline will get tracked as a low percentage shot despite it being more dangerous then 95% of the shots our forwards will make from a high danger zone. These are the stats that drive me nuts. They’re flawed. If someone were to come to me with EV save % vs PK/PP save %, I would take them serious as I think it actually tells something. One teams at a clear disadvantage while the other team is not. Example, I remember in 16/17, our PK was brutal under Therrien. Two or three guys out of position at all times and screening the goalie. If you look at Price’s EV save % threw the slump he had that season, it was still one of the tops in the league despite down months. Once Therrien was fired, his stats started to rapidly increase as Julien made the adjustments.

I think it’s bogus someone can say your argument means nothing unless you have the numbers to prove it. It is just critical thinking when it comes to hockey and knowing what you have in each player beyond the numbers. I wasn’t the only one who looked at the projected roster on D after Markov was let go or Streit was signed and knew the disaster we saw last year was coming and no fluke, and it didn’t take looking at a single number to predict it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandviper

Belial

Registered User
Oct 22, 2014
26,142
14,323
Montreal
I get what you are trying to say but unless the stats are readily available, you can't really debate this in good faith... especially when you are pointing out specific stats to support your own claims.

It's not me here who's trying to make an argument though, it's you guys who are trying to sell an opinion backed with absolutely nothing for an argument.

I don't need any stats to debate cuz there's no debate.

Show me our transition struggled with something quantifiable and then we can debate.

And don't tell me you watched the games because I also watched the games...

So, the article I linked... you are 100% correct. It was indeed only ~6 games into the season. However, what we do know is the team struggled in pre-season and Pacioretty struggled all of last year. We can argue he's had longer droughts with Markov and Subban in the lineup, but the stats are there... those two guys were partially or wholly responsible for ~60% of his goal totals in the time frame examined.

Again, the article was 6 games into the season but in the end, Pacioretty scored ~52% less than prior years as an average. While he was a forward, losing Radulov also probably didn't help matters.

What stats are there? That Subban and/or Markov passed the puck to Pacioretty and he scored?

Do you know how many times Petry or whoever on that D passed to Pacioretty and he failed to score last year?

I mean, you're telling me he failed to score cuz he was not getting the puck but can you prove this?

Should I just believe what you're saying or how is this working?

As for your specific stat requests, a show of good faith would be to point me in the right direction to look at the stats or present the stats yourself to support your prior claim that the defence are regularly hitting those tape to tape passes and have high completion rates. What I can say though is advanced stats state the defence struggled:

Benn: 49.8% CF
Schlemko: 49.4% CF
Mete: 50.1% CF
Alzner: 49.8% CF
Weber: 54% CF
Petry: 52% CF

Of the main 6 last season, only 2 were above the team average of 50.2% CF. Mete was above 50% though so that isn't bad, especially as a rookie, but the defence as a group controlled play less than their counterparts.

I don't think you understand what CF% stands for.

First of all, it's not an individual stat it's a team stat.

And almost 50% for a guy like Alzner who starts the majority of his shifts in his own zone is great, there's nothing bad there!

That means the team usually shoots to the net as often as the opposition does when Alzner is on the ice.

If he would be as brutal as some here believe we would probably see it in numbers but somehow we don't...

What is with you and obsession with numbers? This is why I can’t stand advanced stats. People who know very little about the game think a fancy stat can backup any argument when it’s usually flawed. Nothing about my post had anything to do with numbers anyways. It had to do with common sense and how the game is played.

I'm not obsessed with numbers but your eye test is not something we can quantify.

How can we debate something that's subjective?

Just a few corrections. Niemi played close to half his games against non playoff teams, and because the opponent was Montreal, often with weaker lineups.

He actually played 20 games (as goalie of record) won 7 and lost 13 (4 in SO).
3.12 GAA .911 S%. Not sure why you're tooting his horn.

Close to half? I told you the exact number! There's no need to make it sound worse than it is in reality just to try and save face.

You didn't even bother to check the stats for the games he played for us and not his stats for the whole season...

He played in 19 games for us and finished the year with .929 Sv% and 2.46 GAA.
 

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,585
17,344
I'm not obsessed with numbers but your eye test is not something we can quantify.

How can we debate something that's subjective?

It’s an opinion based debate on what you’re seeing on the ice. What’s wrong with that? If you need advanaced stats to have a debate, what did people talk about the previous decades the sport was around when they weren’t so readily available or arounf at all? There’s nothing wrong with a discussion based on what you see with your eye. Most people who evaluate talent at any level use the eye test. If you can add statistics that make sense to strengthen your argument, then great. But I’ve seen way to many users on this board use them out of context to create a false image so unless I know a poster whose reliable is using them, I take them with a grain of salt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandviper

Belial

Registered User
Oct 22, 2014
26,142
14,323
Montreal
It’s an opinion based debate on what you’re seeing on the ice. What’s wrong with that? If you need advanaced stats to have a debate, what did people talk about the previous decades the sport was around when they weren’t so readily available or arounf at all? There’s nothing wrong with a discussion based on what you see with your eye. Most people who evaluate talent at any level use the eye test. If you can add statistics that make sense to strengthen your argument, then great. But I’ve seen way to many users on this board use them out of context to create a false image so unless I know a poster whose reliable is using them, I take them with a grain of salt.

It's not a debate then, it's an exchange of opinions or just a hockey discussion. There's nothing wrong with that is just that if we disagree we need something more than my dad is stronger than your dad, believe me! I swear!
 

groovejuice

Without deviation progress is not possible
Jun 27, 2011
19,277
18,222
Calgary
It's not me here who's trying to make an argument though, it's you guys who are trying to sell an opinion backed with absolutely nothing for an argument.

I don't need any stats to debate cuz there's no debate.

Show me our transition struggled with something quantifiable and then we can debate.

And don't tell me you watched the games because I also watched the games...



What stats are there? That Subban and/or Markov passed the puck to Pacioretty and he scored?

Do you know how many times Petry or whoever on that D passed to Pacioretty and he failed to score last year?

I mean, you're telling me he failed to score cuz he was not getting the puck but can you prove this?

Should I just believe what you're saying or how is this working?



I don't think you understand what CF% stands for.

First of all, it's not an individual stat it's a team stat.

And almost 50% for a guy like Alzner who starts the majority of his shifts in his own zone is great, there's nothing bad there!

That means the team usually shoots to the net as often as the opposition does when Alzner is on the ice.

If he would be as brutal as some here believe we would probably see it in numbers but somehow we don't...



I'm not obsessed with numbers but your eye test is not something we can quantify.

How can we debate something that's subjective?



Close to half? I told you the exact number! There's no need to make it sound worse than it is in reality just to try and save face.

You didn't even bother to check the stats for the games he played for us and not his stats for the whole season...

He played in 19 games for us and finished the year with .929 Sv% and 2.46 GAA.

I got the stats from nhl.com. His record in Montreal last year was 7-9-4. 20 games losing 2/3 of them. The point is that his record just wasn't very good, regardless of how you choose to spin it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandviper

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,585
17,344
It's not a debate then, it's an exchange of opinions or just a hockey discussion. There's nothing wrong with that is just that if we disagree we need something more than my dad is stronger than your dad, believe me! I swear!

It can still be a debate. Regardless, if you want to say it’s an exchange of opinions, that’s true as well. Those are the types of discussions I like to have with posters as I’m not a huge analytics guy but of coarse I welcome other fans bringing in different stats into the conversations so it can be debated how much weight they actually have. Different statistics hold much more weight then others and there’s so many out there now. I’ve always liked breaking down each one in conversations. Numerous times I’ve used the eye test to point something out and a poster comes in with a post that shows my eye test was in fact correct so I do trust my eyes. I’m not completely insane and know atleast a little bit of what I’m talking about.
 

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,585
17,344
I got the stats from nhl.com. His record in Montreal last year was 7-9-4. 20 games losing 2/3 of them. The point is that his record just wasn't very good, regardless of how you choose to spin it.

Pointed it out a few times in other threads. Niemi was excellent for us last year and Lindgren was pretty good during his first 8 game call up. Lindgren had a .924 after his first 8 games and Niemi had a .929. The most alarming part of this is both goalies had losing records despite putting up very good-elite numbers which tells me if the team has gotten worse, stayed the same, or only improved a little, even if Price recovers, it’s going to have little impact on our record.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->