Trade Bait and a New Core.

[BlowbyBlow]

And somehow this is the fault of individual players? Bull.



Oh look, the goalposts moved again.



This is bullcrap. Faceoffs have no significant impact on puck possession/shot attempts. This has been examined pretty extensively, but involves using those pesky stats again. But I can illustrate that with an example: your centre wins a draw clean to his winger, who get tied up by his opposite number, loses the puck and it's cleared: your centre gets a check in the faceoff category, but you've lost possession. Whatever advantage is conferred by a faceoff win is usually negated within seconds by the flow of play.



Shooting percentage isn't an evaluative tool. No one says "oh this guy's good, look at his shooting percentage." Nugent Hopkins' SH% isn't even particularly high so I'm not sure why it's even an issue here.



Bergeron is a monster, but both Backes and Brassard are very comparable to RNH in terms of their fancy stats

Backes
Brassard

But again, those are stats, so caveat emptor.

Your switching around cause you can't win the argument. I already said shooting percentage was stupid. If you seriously think especially on the pp a player who wins the faceoff (who if he is an offensive player would be on the PP) isn't driving possession or in other ways you have absolutely no knowledge of hockey at all.

You could chart a player like Joe Thornton and figure out how much more the puck is the opposing teams end. Nuge is an average centerman, and a #3C on a bottom team.

 

[Fourier]

Your switching around cause you can't win the argument. I already said shooting percentage was stupid. If you seriously think especially on the pp a player who wins the faceoff (who if he is an offensive player would be on the PP) isn't driving possession or in other ways you have absolutely no knowledge of hockey at all.

You could chart a player like Joe Thornton and figure out how much more the puck is the opposing teams end. Nuge is an average centerman, and a #3C on a bottom team.

As Young Lion points out the impact of a faceoff on possession has been studied extensively. It is actually one topic that does lend itself very well to analysis. Faceoff wins do impact possession but less than might be expected;

https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/01/15/the-relationship-between-corsi-and-winning-faceoffs/

You want to know the actual impact of a typical faceoff on the outcome of a game take a look here:

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/FaceoffAnalysis12-12.pdf

This analysis was based on 211,372 faceoffs over 3 years. Roughly speaking to generate one additional goal at ES it would take 76 additional faceoff wins and on the pp that number is 40. The best you will get is about 35 for a pp faceoff in the OFF/DEF zone. The qualitative aspects of these statistics, with potentially somewhat different ratios, have been verified by other author's using both similar and different analysis. For example this study shows the impact of a faceoff on shot rates:

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011...offensive-zone-faceoff-even-strength-vs-power

It shows that the impact of the win or loss is short lived but also confirms the relatively minimal impact that FO% has on wins.

They seem counter intuitive but that is because an event that seems noteworthy can often be traced to a faceoff. This creates the illusion that a players FO% has much more impact than it really does. The illusion stems from the fact that the vast majority of faceoffs have little impact on the overall play.

The reality is that if Nuge were to go from a 45.6% FO% to a 52% FO% Statistically the net gain for the team might be 1-2 goals over the course of a season.

None of this means that you don't want to win as many draws as possible. Of course you do. Nor does it mean that there are not instances in games where a win is not an important thing. But even in those situations the difference between a very good faceoff guy and a weak one is roughly one draw in 10.

 

[Young Lions*]

Your switching around cause you can't win the argument. I already said shooting percentage was stupid.

How is SH% stupid? It's a performance measure like any other.

If you seriously think especially on the pp a player who wins the faceoff (who if he is an offensive player would be on the PP) isn't driving possession or in other ways you have absolutely no knowledge of hockey at all.

Faceoffs don't correlate with possession in any significant way. If they did, then the best faceoff players would also be the best possession players. they aren't. Look at Jarret Stoll for example.

As I said, and this should be obvious from observation and intuitive, there's far more events impacting possession after a faceoff than the faceoff itself.

That you ascribe such importance to faceoffs despite the obvious issues is another great example of the eye test's failings.

You could chart a player like Joe Thornton and figure out how much more the puck is the opposing teams end.

They do that. But that would be another statistic you have no use for.

Nuge is an average centerman, and a #3C on a bottom team.

That he's 3C on a bottom team with a generational talent and a hotshot rookie ahead of him is hardly the indictment of the player you think it is.

 

[Mr Positive]

Don't trade Nuge or Ebs this season. Look at it in the offseason, but even then we could aim to keep both and just sign the Dman we need in FA. If we strike out on FAs, then look for a major trade. I like our chances though.

Right now, give good minutes to Purcell and Schultz and try pawning them off at the deadline or before. If we retain salary we should be able to get a couple 2nd rounders. We're keeping Kassian, Nilsson, Pakarinen, and Gryba

 

[BlowbyBlow]

How is SH% stupid? It's a performance measure like any other.

First off

Shooting percentage doesn't tell me:

a) # of shots (higher isn't always better)
b) Higher shooting percentage (Converting those shots into goals) plain and simple if your shooting to score 95% of the time - other times your looking for tips, rebounds, ect)

Some players shoot more, have lots of goals but really low shooting percentage (see Ovechkin)


a) Players with the highest # of shots (higher isn't always better)
A. Ovechkin - 239 shots - 29 goals
B. Burns - 212 shots - 18 goals
M. Pacorietty - 204 shots - 19 goals
T. Seguin - 198 shots - 27 goals =
T. Hall - 196 shots - 18 goals
P. Kane - 193 shots - 31 goals
N. Kadri - 187 shots - 11 goals
V. Tarasenko - 187 shots - 25 goals
D. Sedin - 178 shots - 21 goals
P. Bergeron - 176 shots - 19 goals

Many of these players are all over the place Burns/Kadri shoot alot but there is many players who shoot way less and get more goals.

R.Nugent hopkins - 8 goals/22 assists (85 shots on goal) -
Comparing other players with the same shots on goal -

J. Eberle (14 goals / 13 assists) - (86 shots on goal)
S. Bennett ( 13 goals / 9 assists) - (87 shots on goal)
A. Anisimov ( 17 goals/11 assist) - (87 shots on goal)
J. Hansen ( 15 goals / 11 assists) - (85 shots on goal)

These are the only exceptions to the rule RNH is essentially in the middle in terms of converting shots into goals. Most players who

shoot as much as him end up in the range of 5-10 goals (some less/some more)

b) Higher shooting percentage
The shots on goal obviously relate to higher shooting percentage if converting, if not converting lower. Interesting enough


Here is some examples of players with the highest shooting percentage


Anthony Duclair - 21.5% - 14 goals - 26 points (65 shots on goal) (0.52 points/per game)
Connor McDavid, - 20.7% - 6 goals 17 points (29 shots on goal) (1.13 Points/per games)
Jaromir Jagr, 20.0% 16 goals 21 assists 37 points (80 shots on goal) 0.77 points/game
Scott Hartnell, 18.4% 18 goals 18 assists 36 points 85 0.71 (points per game) (98

shots on goal)
Jamie Benn, 17.1% 28 goals 30 assists 58 points 16 45 1.12 (points/game) (164 shots
on goal)
Leon Draisaitl 17.1% 14 goals/26 assists 40 points (82 shots on goal)


Draisaitl has (14 goals/26 assists) - (82 shots on goal) and a 17.1% (shooting percentage)


This is where I feel the stat gets most interesting

Now we could hypothetically say if
Draisaitl had as many shots as Hall (196) with his same shooting percentage (17.1%) he would have 33.5 (34) goals and be up there with Kane

P. Kane has 193 shots on goal - 16.1% = 31 goals. - He shoots alot but converts on his chances.

We could also could conclude (if we were to stretch it that far)
Hall as the most shots on goal (196 shots) = 9.2% - if he took better shots he could score more (as i said far stretch) and improve his shooting percentage

For Hall you could simply say take better shots/ Draisaitl you could say shoot more.

However you would be excluding the fact that more shots could easily mean lower shooting percentage and not necessarily more goals based on quality of chances/shots - this leads to essentially how a player plays in general (getting to the open spots)

IMO shooting % is the exact same as analytics in baseball defending batting percentage many players have better percentage but less bat appearances - same as in hockey less shots can mean higher percentage, but overall not more goals

This is why i would put Seguin, Kane, Tarasenko all up there as the best goal scorers because there shooting alot (to get more goals) and there shooting percentage stays up because they convert.

It comes down to some players will shoot more and convert at a lower rate but end with high amount of goals cause there shooting alot in the first place (Ovechkin/Burns/Hall)
Many players shoot alot and have low shooting percentage but you wouldn't know if they had even less goals/points if you told them to shoot less - quality/quantity (a player may be shooting alot but it doesn't relate to the quality of those high number of shots)

in conclusion, shooting percentage can not be looked in isolation and be the be all end all,
If shooting % was the most important factor i would take Pavelski/Backstrom

If higher # of shots (law of average) came into effect i would look at Ovechkin/Hall/Seguin

Overall I would want someone in the middle shoots alot but not at the top (higher end) i would take Kane (16.1%)

 

[BlowbyBlow]

Faceoffs don't correlate with possession in any significant way. If they did, then the best faceoff players would also be the best possession players. they aren't. Look at Jarret Stoll for example.

As I said, and this should be obvious from observation and intuitive, there's far more events impacting possession after a faceoff than the faceoff itself.

That you ascribe such importance to faceoffs despite the obvious issues is another great example of the eye test's failings.

They do that. But that would be another statistic you have no use for.

What I said was if your a scout/GM/coach you have a centerman because you need him to win faceoffs.

In what world would it not be important or effective its effective on the powerplay, PK, defensive zone/offensive zone.

Fans get to analytical. A typical coaches score card (if you ever see one) he will be writing down how good was a center on the offensive draw/defensive draw. Hockey has been played for a 100+ years and last I checked RNH is a centerman who ranks (271st in faceoff %, 249 in shooting percentage)


Faceoffs W L %
RNH 710 322 388 45.4

Lets look at players who take as many faceoffs

RNH is 39th in # of draws taken - (most Ryan O'reilly)
Comparable players with # of faceoffs and faceoff wins

Faceoffs W L %
#31 Nathan Mckinnon 790 384 406 48.6
#32 M. Fisher 775 416 359 53.7
#33 J. Carter 766 362 404 47.3
#34 Henrik Zetterberg 763 378 385 49.5
#35 M. Letestu 732 380 352 51.9
#36 C. Eakin 732 351 381 48.0
#37 R. Getzlaf 718 347 371 48.3
#38 F. Nielsen 711 356 355 50.1
#39 R. Nugent Hopkins 710 322 388 45.4
#40 M. Granlund 699 338 361 48.4
#41 A. Barkov 697 339 358 48.6
#42 M. Backlund 694 332 362 47.8
#43 E. Kuznetzov 689 322 367 46.7
#44 P. Statsny 687 379 308 55.2
#45 J. Spezza 686 378 308 55.1

RNH lowest % of faceoff wins of any player with comparable # of faceoffs

That he's 3C on a bottom team with a generational talent and a hotshot rookie ahead of him is hardly the indictment of the player you think it is.

Well first of all Draisaitl/Eberle/RNH have the same number of shots on goal yet Draisaitl/Eberle have higher shooting percentage and more goals (RNH 9.2 shooting percentage & 8 goals) both Drai/Eberle score 40% more on there shots

Mcdavid has the highest shooting percentage (less goals but less games - but most points per/game) eventually his shooting percentage would be at a respectable level; not at the high amount it is at now.

RNH shoots just as much as so called shooters (Drai/Eberle) yet scores less with a 9.2 shooting percentage (hip hip hooray for shooting percentage)


Faceoffs
M. Letestu based on more faceoffs has won more with a 51.9% - RNH is 10% less.

Now for arguments sake I won't use him because his competition would be less however Zetterberg, fisher, Carter, Getzlaf, Spezza all face best competition and there all true #1's so even if you were to say RNH is a #1 he has a lower percentage when compared to other top centers, while at the same time fundamentally not doing anything more.

I will stand by this on a stanley cup team RNH barely makes it as a #2 centerman.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

As Young Lion points out the impact of a faceoff on possession has been studied extensively. It is actually one topic that does lend itself very well to analysis. Faceoff wins do impact possession but less than might be expected;

https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/01/15/the-relationship-between-corsi-and-winning-faceoffs/

You want to know the actual impact of a typical faceoff on the outcome of a game take a look here:

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/FaceoffAnalysis12-12.pdf

This analysis was based on 211,372 faceoffs over 3 years. Roughly speaking to generate one additional goal at ES it would take 76 additional faceoff wins and on the pp that number is 40. The best you will get is about 35 for a pp faceoff in the OFF/DEF zone. The qualitative aspects of these statistics, with potentially somewhat different ratios, have been verified by other author's using both similar and different analysis. For example this study shows the impact of a faceoff on shot rates:

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011...offensive-zone-faceoff-even-strength-vs-power

It shows that the impact of the win or loss is short lived but also confirms the relatively minimal impact that FO% has on wins.

They seem counter intuitive but that is because an event that seems noteworthy can often be traced to a faceoff. This creates the illusion that a players FO% has much more impact than it really does. The illusion stems from the fact that the vast majority of faceoffs have little impact on the overall play.

The reality is that if Nuge were to go from a 45.6% FO% to a 52% FO% Statistically the net gain for the team might be 1-2 goals over the course of a season.

None of this means that you don't want to win as many draws as possible. Of course you do. Nor does it mean that there are not instances in games where a win is not an important thing. But even in those situations the difference between a very good faceoff guy and a weak one is roughly one draw in 10.

I have read everything and take it into account.Thanks so much for the effort you put in

While i have read it I think the only thing people look past is situational play. You would obviously want to win a 100% of all faceoffs. You would also like to put your #1 faceoff guy if that was possible.

To me it's still a qualitative aspect. Here is a great example there was a year where in the defensive zone the Rangers absolutely couldn't win a faceoff against Jarret Stoll. Over a whole year and varying levels of competition it may shake up as not as big of a deal. In that series, it made a big deal and in close games it was definitely heavily a factor.

There is also times when you want to score on a PP more times out of not int he offensive zone you need a guy to win a faceoff.

M. Malhotra is another example of a guy who the Canucks specifically put out for a draw. Not your highest skilled guy BUT he saved 30+ seconds of the team not having to go down the ice. (These are the situations that are usually cut and dry you lose the faceoff puck goes down the ice)

Winning/losing can mean other teams decision to put there best players on the ice vs not putting there best players on the ice based on a situation you forced them to be in.

In that series Stoll got more ice time in the defensive zone, and the Rangers were forced to changed there lineup up just because they couldn't have there most skilled C on ice. There's other factors to having a good faceoff percentage besides possession.

 

[Oilfan2]

I have read everything and take it into account.Thanks so much for the effort you put in

While i have read it I think the only thing people look past is situational play. You would obviously want to win a 100% of all faceoffs. You would also like to put your #1 faceoff guy if that was possible.

To me it's still a qualitative aspect. Here is a great example there was a year where in the defensive zone the Rangers absolutely couldn't win a faceoff against Jarret Stoll. Over a whole year and varying levels of competition it may shake up as not as big of a deal. In that series, it made a big deal and in close games it was definitely heavily a factor.

There is also times when you want to score on a PP more times out of not int he offensive zone you need a guy to win a faceoff.

M. Malhotra is another example of a guy who the Canucks specifically put out for a draw. Not your highest skilled guy BUT he saved 30+ seconds of the team not having to go down the ice. (These are the situations that are usually cut and dry you lose the faceoff puck goes down the ice)

Winning/losing can mean other teams decision to put there best players on the ice vs not putting there best players on the ice based on a situation you forced them to be in.

In that series Stoll got more ice time in the defensive zone, and the Rangers were forced to changed there lineup up just because they couldn't have there most skilled C on ice. There's other factors to having a good faceoff percentage besides possession.

You're wrong and you know it.

Quit while you're behind...

 

[BlowbyBlow]

You're wrong and you know it.

Quit while you're behind...

Most people would agree with my posts.

The last one you replied to and my point is very relevant.

Faceoffs are situational and still very important in many situations. I'm sorry your a RNH apologist.

If I was a G.M. i would have a hard time selling him off as someone who could be anything more than a #2 centerman - facts are facts.

In my previous posts, I showcased is wonderful shooting percentage was nothing - Draisaitl/Eberle were on par with shots on goal and were around 40% more successful (at this point almost double the goals)

I'm sorry I won the argument buddy boy - I will continue posting thanks

 

[Fourier]

I have read everything and take it into account.Thanks so much for the effort you put in

While i have read it I think the only thing people look past is situational play. You would obviously want to win a 100% of all faceoffs. You would also like to put your #1 faceoff guy if that was possible.

To me it's still a qualitative aspect. Here is a great example there was a year where in the defensive zone the Rangers absolutely couldn't win a faceoff against Jarret Stoll. Over a whole year and varying levels of competition it may shake up as not as big of a deal. In that series, it made a big deal and in close games it was definitely heavily a factor.

There is also times when you want to score on a PP more times out of not int he offensive zone you need a guy to win a faceoff.

M. Malhotra is another example of a guy who the Canucks specifically put out for a draw. Not your highest skilled guy BUT he saved 30+ seconds of the team not having to go down the ice. (These are the situations that are usually cut and dry you lose the faceoff puck goes down the ice)

Winning/losing can mean other teams decision to put there best players on the ice vs not putting there best players on the ice based on a situation you forced them to be in.

In that series Stoll got more ice time in the defensive zone, and the Rangers were forced to changed there lineup up just because they couldn't have there most skilled C on ice. There's other factors to having a good faceoff percentage besides possession.

What you are talking about is a completely different thing.

I'll address the two parts separately. Individual face offs do matter. With a draw in your own end late in the game you may well want to put your best faceoff guy out there especially is there is say 10-20 seconds left because in that time frame winning the draw will probably be enough to kill most of the clock.

But if that guy is a plug it can backfire. Because regardless of how it may seem your best faceoff guy is still going to lose 4 in 10 at the absolute best. So he had better be able to play. In many cases very good faceoff guys are also solid defensively. This helps if you are defending a lead. But the situation gets more dicey if the things are reversed and you are trying to score.

With 15 seconds left and a draw in the offensive zone you may want to send out a guy like Gordon or Letestu or even Lander because getting possession is important and that's about all you need them to do. But he is also an offensive liability so if there was more time on the clock you may well be better off with a weaker faceoff man who can actually score. The difference between a 45% and a 55% guy is actually only 1 draw in ten so it is not worth it if there is enough time left to regain possession on a lost draw.

As to the Stoll part...Are you talking about the 2014 Cup final? If so take a look at what the actual numbers were:

In game 1 Stoll was 3/5=60% in defensive zone draws. He was even against Stepan and Richards and won his only draw against Brassard.

In game 2 he did have a very good game going 10/13=77%. Much of this success was against Brassard since he went 5/5 against him. Interestingly enough though Brassard was just under 50% overall for the day going 11/23 including 8/11 against Kopitar who is also another great faceoff guy.

Now after a great game in game 2 in game 3 Stoll was 2/5=40% this time going 1/3 against Brassard. Small sample size but did Brassard actually learn something between games? Or maybe luck is playing a role here.

Next game was another small sample size with him winning 4/5=80% in the defensive zone.

In game 5 he was 8/15=53% so back to normal. But he also lost 4 of 5 to Brad Richards in this game.

So over the whole series Stoll was 27/42=62% in the defensive zone. And if you look at his overall numbers he as 55.5% on 115 draws. This compares with 54.7% during the season. So while he was certainly very good in the defensive zone much of this can be attributed to his exceptional game 2. Otherwise he performed pretty much up to par and game his team a very slight advantage over other options.

What this seems to show is that your memory of how things actually played out does not agree with what really happened. This is not surprising because you may have watched with much more attention certain draws or possibly remember game 2 a lot more than the others where Stall did have a very good game on the dot.

But this also illustrate why I said that your comments suggest that you use statistics incorrectly. Your methods create bias that is inappropriate because it mistakes statistical noise for some significant characteristic in a player.

Your latest response to Young Lion where you point out that fans tend to be too analytical is further evidence of a misuse of stats. Interestingly enough you then went on to try and use stats to make your point. The premise of your argument is that a 2-3% difference in faceoff numbers is evidence that on a Stanley cup team that Nuge would be a #2C. Yet over the course of an entire playoff that might mean a difference of perhaps 6 draws and statistically at best a one in 10 chance that this would result in even 1 goal difference.

With all due respect, the more you try to make your point the more flawed your methodology seems to be.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

What you are talking about is a completely different thing.

I'll address the two parts separately. Individual face offs do matter. With a draw in your own end late in the game you may well want to put your best faceoff guy out there especially is there is say 10-20 seconds left because in that time frame winning the draw will probably be enough to kill most of the clock.

But if that guy is a plug it can backfire. Because regardless of how it may seem your best faceoff guy is still going to lose 4 in 10 at the absolute best. So he had better be able to play. In many cases very good faceoff guys are also solid defensively. This helps if you are defending a lead. But the situation gets more dicey if the things are reversed and you are trying to score.

With 15 seconds left and a draw in the offensive zone you may want to send out a guy like Gordon or Letestu or even Lander because getting possession is important and that's about all you need them to do. But he is also an offensive liability so if there was more time on the clock you may well be better off with a weaker faceoff man who can actually score. The difference between a 45% and a 55% guy is actually only 1 draw in ten so it is not worth it if there is enough time left to regain possession on a lost draw.

As to the Stoll part...Are you talking about the 2014 Cup final? If so take a look at what the actual numbers were:

In game 1 Stoll was 3/5=60% in defensive zone draws. He was even against Stepan and Richards and won his only draw against Brassard.

In game 2 he did have a very good game going 10/13=77%. Much of this success was against Brassard since he went 5/5 against him. Interestingly enough though Brassard was just under 50% overall for the day going 11/23 including 8/11 against Kopitar who is also another great faceoff guy.

Now after a great game in game 2 in game 3 Stoll was 2/5=40% this time going 1/3 against Brassard. Small sample size but did Brassard actually learn something between games?

Next game was another small sample size with him winning 4/5=80% in the defensive zone.

In game 5 he was 8/15=53% so back to normal. But he also lost 4 of 5 to Brad Richards in this game.

So over the whole series Stoll was 27/42=62% in the defensive zone. And if you look at his overall numbers he as 55.5% on 115 draws. This compares with 54.7% during the season. So while he was certainly very good in the defensive zone much of this can be attributed to his exceptional game 2. Otherwise he performed pretty much up to par and game his team a very slight advantage over other options.

What this seems to show is that your memory of how things actually played out does not agree with what really happened. This is not surprising because you may have watched with much more attention certain draws or possibly remember game 2 a lot more than the others where Stall did have a very good game on the dot.

But this also illustrate why I said that your comments suggest that you use statistics incorrectly. Your methods create bias that is inappropriate because it mistakes statistical noise for some significant characteristic in a player.

Your latest response to Young Lion where you point out that fans tend to be too analytical is further evidence of a misuse of stats. Interestingly enough you then went on to try and use stats to make your point. The premise of your argument is that a 2-3% difference in faceoff numbers is evidence that on a Stanley cup team that Nuge would be a #2C. Yet over the course of an entire playoff that might mean a difference of perhaps 6 draws and statistically at best a one in 10 chance that this would result in even 1 goal difference.

With all due respect, the more you try to make your point the more flawed your methodology seems to be.

My point to Younglions was this:

That you should use the highest quality stats possible like I showed above (when I used shooting percentage and shots on goal and how the correlation isn't always yielding the same/similar results for every player)

My other point to get across is
a) judge the opponent b) judge the situation in the game (both are a summary of all my posts)

Now he was saying shooting percentage was a stat to follow i was actually saying that shooting percentage and Nuge in respect to that wasn't that great (I will defend faceoff % in a moment)

RNH's shooting percentage is 9.2% and with the same amount of shots (through the year) Draisaitl/Eberle they are almost double in production with 14 goals to Nuges 8

Now I will defend faceoff percentage

Stoll was the master of situational play because throughout the series he was winning his faceoffs late in games, or when New York needed to score - that is what i remember. Actually when i watch great teams or teams in the final there is so many guys on winning teams that are great at faceoffs.

Is there exceptions to the rule of course E. Malkin this year is about 42% now it's not a huge deal when you realize the guy is a beast at forechecking. Also late in a game you would most likely have Crosby on the faceoff. Many teams will double with two centerman especially late in a game needing a goal.

In this case however i'm comparing Nuge to a true #1 center or a traditional #1 center Malkin pretty much plays like winger most of the time anyway.

Now defending a lead vs needing to score are two different things. There are many situations that aren't created equal

Need to score (defensive zone) You need to not get trapped in your zone and depending on the game you may choose a better faceoff guy over a higher skilled offensive player and do a quick change once the puck is in the offensive zone.
Need to score (offensive zone) You are right if you win the faceoff but have a lower quality centerman who has less offensive skill you may not be well set up.
Need to defend (defensive zone) Once again you need a better faceoff guy
Need to defend (offensive zone) in this case i don't want a defensive specialist centerman like Stoll i want to rotate my lines and have the guys putting the pressure on.

I am just using stats in how they relate to situational play and i am also use advanced stats - general stats over a course of 82 games can tell you nothing because the sample is often to large because a player can raise stats or increase percentages against mediocre/poor teams and have them lower against good/great teams, and over the season they average out.

Nuge had 710 faceoffs this year and he had a 45.6% now if i took that and ran with it I wouldn't know who he had a hard time with or had an easy time with. As i said i want a sample of 20-30 games against great competition or against the best teams in regards to everything. How a player performs against CBJ, Phoenix, Toronto (and any bottom team throughout the year doesn't tell me anything) - its convenient to raise players average but tells me nothing of how well i should expect a player to perform against better competition if that's all i look at.

I don't use stats different or cherry pick i just like advanced stats (stated before) because you can look at situations. Does it hurt RNH fans that when i pick a better quality team he may not perform as well against a true #1 center.

 

[AM]

Most people would agree with my posts.

The last one you replied to and my point is very relevant.

Faceoffs are situational and still very important in many situations. I'm sorry your a RNH apologist.

If I was a G.M. i would have a hard time selling him off as someone who could be anything more than a #2 centerman - facts are facts.

In my previous posts, I showcased is wonderful shooting percentage was nothing - Draisaitl/Eberle were on par with shots on goal and were around 40% more successful (at this point almost double the goals)

I'm sorry I won the argument buddy boy - I will continue posting thanks

Lets get your argument straight. Youre gonna trade a 3C and get a number one D back?

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

The point of statistical analysis is so we DON'T have to rely on biased anecdotal evidence.

Do you consider Ryan Johansen a #1C?

 

[Fourier]

My point to Younglions was this:

That you should use the highest quality stats possible like I showed above (when I used shooting percentage and shots on goal and how the correlation isn't always yielding the same/similar results for every player)

My other point to get across is
a) judge the opponent b) judge the situation in the game (both are a summary of all my posts)

Now he was saying shooting percentage was a stat to follow i was actually saying that shooting percentage and Nuge in respect to that wasn't that great (I will defend faceoff % in a moment)

RNH's shooting percentage is 9.2% and with the same amount of shots (through the year) Draisaitl/Eberle they are almost double in production with 14 goals to Nuges 8

Now I will defend faceoff percentage

Stoll was the master of situational play because throughout the series he was winning his faceoffs late in games, or when New York needed to score - that is what i remember. Actually when i watch great teams or teams in the final there is so many guys on winning teams that are great at faceoffs.

Is there exceptions to the rule of course E. Malkin this year is about 42% now it's not a huge deal when you realize the guy is a beast at forechecking. Also late in a game you would most likely have Crosby on the faceoff. Many teams will double with two centerman especially late in a game needing a goal.

In this case however i'm comparing Nuge to a true #1 center or a traditional #1 center Malkin pretty much plays like winger most of the time anyway.

Now defending a lead vs needing to score are two different things. There are many situations that aren't created equal

Need to score (defensive zone) You need to not get trapped in your zone and depending on the game you may choose a better faceoff guy over a higher skilled offensive player and do a quick change once the puck is in the offensive zone.
Need to score (offensive zone) You are right if you win the faceoff but have a lower quality centerman who has less offensive skill you may not be well set up.
Need to defend (defensive zone) Once again you need a better faceoff guy
Need to defend (offensive zone) in this case i don't want a defensive specialist centerman like Stoll i want to rotate my lines and have the guys putting the pressure on.

I am just using stats in how they relate to situational play and i am also use advanced stats - general stats over a course of 82 games can tell you nothing because the sample is often to large because a player can raise stats or increase percentages against mediocre/poor teams and have them lower against good/great teams, and over the season they average out.

Nuge had 710 faceoffs this year and he had a 45.6% now if i took that and ran with it I wouldn't know who he had a hard time with or had an easy time with. As i said i want a sample of 20-30 games against great competition or against the best teams in regards to everything. How a player performs against CBJ, Phoenix, Toronto (and any bottom team throughout the year doesn't tell me anything) - its convenient to raise players average but tells me nothing of how well i should expect a player to perform against better competition if that's all i look at.

I don't use stats different or cherry pick i just like advanced stats (stated before) because you can look at situations. Does it hurt RNH fans that when i pick a better quality team he may not perform as well against a true #1 center.

I'll be blunt. This debate started because you claim to see things that people like me don't with the clear implication being that your understanding of the game is somehow much deeper. Then you go on to present your case with claims that tend to back up only part of your assertion in the sense that the real data shows that you see things that never actually happened and as such may indeed see things differently than us.

From there you go on to explain how you use statistics in a way that you seem to suggest is more insightful. But in doing so you actually show that you do not understand the limitations of how data can be interpreted and instead of recognizing these limitations you actually champion using them is a way that is perhaps most likely to lead to misinterpretation. Young Lions rightfully points out the errors in your comments and instead of acknowledging this you post this:

Most people would agree with my posts.

The last one you replied to and my point is very relevant.

Faceoffs are situational and still very important in many situations. I'm sorry your a RNH apologist.

If I was a G.M. i would have a hard time selling him off as someone who could be anything more than a #2 centerman - facts are facts.

In my previous posts, I showcased is wonderful shooting percentage was nothing - Draisaitl/Eberle were on par with shots on goal and were around 40% more successful (at this point almost double the goals)

I'm sorry I won the argument buddy boy - I will continue posting thanks

I honestly don't know if you cannot understand the obvious falsies in your arguments or whether you are simply choosing to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative. In either case, Young Lions had the right idea with his dead horse post.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

I'll be blunt. This debate started because you claim to see things that people like me don't with the clear implication being that your understanding of the game is somehow much deeper. Then you go on to present your case with claims that tend to back up only part of your assertion in the sense that the real data shows that you see things that never actually happened and as such may indeed see things differently than us.

My point of analysis is there either use the eye sight test for general analysis where you can watch things and decipher enough information, BUT use it on quality competition to get a deeper understanding and use a smaller sample size.) Unfortunately, it may sound absurd to use advanced stats and use the eye sight test, but many things you see more than judging by stats, and somethings you only come to a conclusion when your breaking it down into the finest and minute details.

ex. I don't know if ex. J. Spezza is a great center iceman if he plays against other teams 2nd or 3rd best statistical centerman, or if his shooting percentage is high because he plays 75% of the powerplay - this is where I have said in regards to all stats lets judge them in a context where there not always set up for a favourable advantage every single time. Eventually Younglions and whoever will have to look at situations that aren't favourable matchups to judge there favourite players.

I will stick with my opinion that general stats are useless because over a full season things can average out depending on the games against good, average, mediocre teams. I want to see how a player performs against good teams, and harder competition and I base most if not all of my opinion on that

Be fully analytical and use advanced stats and you get a better understanding. Now Younglions was saying shooting percentage was a stat he considered worthwhile (a general stat that is what it is - judge it how you want) He even went as far as saying RNH had an elite shot.

If he was going by shooting percentage I would say on average an elite shot would have to be converting at 16-20% - RNH sits at 9.2%. He shoots as much as Eberle/Draisaitl and has about 40% less goals (both others have 14 goals each)

The conclusion is he isn't a elite shooter, because of not converting at as high of level as guys with as many shots (Eberle/Draisaitl) and he doesn't shoot enough either.

From there you go on to explain how you use statistics in a way that you seem to suggest is more insightful. But in doing so you actually show that you do not understand the limitations of how data can be interpreted and instead of recognizing these limitations you actually champion using them is a way that is perhaps most likely to lead to misinterpretation. Young Lions rightfully points out the errors in your comments and instead of acknowledging this you post this:

General stats are total limitations. That is what has been used to counter anything I have said. Younglions likes to evalutate using shooting percentage which is a general stat.

It doesn't give me context. Where is most of RNH's 84 shots, they might not be equal to Draisaitl or Eberle, and impair his likelihood of scoring. I used it as an example if your going to use general stats some places and other places not then the place you choose to use i am going to disprove it which I did.

In no point in the argument has it referred to RNH and something he does elite or above average, besides discrediting other stats you don't like.
You don't like faceoff percentage, I don't like shooting percentage, but i just proved shooting percentage is a useless stats (which would actually help Younglions argument) yet nothing has been stated when you look at how low of a rate RNH actually scores on.

I honestly don't know if you cannot understand the obvious falsies in your arguments or whether you are simply choosing to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative. In either case, Young Lions had the right idea with his dead horse post.

There is no fallacies in anything I am saying either you can show me something simply by saying - watch this player in this situation - shooting, hitting, faceoffs, forechecking, cycling, ect or use situational and advanced analytics to make your point. I just don't see any elite or above average qualities of RNH.

I don't get and still don't get how i see the limitations and cherry pick when all small sample size means is i want to see a player against the best competition and base my analysis on that.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

The point of statistical analysis is so we DON'T have to rely on biased anecdotal evidence.

I have used analysis in an unbiased way by using it against better competition. Biased or anecdotal evidence would be me saying RNH shooting percentage or faceoff percentage is this (a high %) against a medicore or poor team.

If you use it in two ways

1) comparative analysis - comparing two players and how they performed in a given identical or close situation. (preferably better competition)

2) smaller sample size (preferably better competition) - where you like it or not poor/mediocre teams that drive stats and improve percentages don't evaluate players very well. There's inconsistencies over a whole year when you use a sample of 82 games or 16 games in football or 164 in baseball it just is.

Use situational analysis and use better competition and you see how a player really performs.

Do you consider Ryan Johansen a #1C?

Like i said point one thing that stands out how RNH is an elite or above average centerman. Johansen at this point is not, but he scores alot when he's focused and has no drama.

Now RNH could be the next Doug Weight but he did several things elite so it's not a comparison.

Usually #1 Centerman are there because of there penchant to score. There eliteness is offense or to drive the play. Johansen will be a #1 on that team, like RNH was on this team, but is the de-facto because no one was as good as him.

Lets get your argument straight. Youre gonna trade a 3C and get a number one D back?

Well i don't' know where you got that back in the trade proposals I said the Oilers would likely be getting back a #2D but more likely a #3D.

If Jones a potential #1D (more likely a #3d at this point) can't get you in the mix. Then the Oilers could potentially get a unproven high pick with the potential of being a #1, but NO team is going to trade RNH for a #1.

 

[Broilers]

Hopefully Nilsson will get hot streak. We can get a pick for him. And sign very good back up if not 1B goalie in the offseason. Gryba is a keeper but beyond 2M/season. Purcell and Schultz should be sent packing as well as Eberle for Hammonic. Islanders must sweeten the pot with 1 st rounder since Eberle ia a 1st liner and Hammonic is number 3 dguy.

 

[tinfish]

Hopefully Nilsson will get hot streak. We can get a pick for him. And sign very good back up if not 1B goalie in the offseason. Gryba is a keeper but beyond 2M/season. Purcell and Schultz should be sent packing as well as Eberle for Hammonic. Islanders must sweeten the pot with 1 st rounder since Eberle ia a 1st liner and Hammonic is number 3 dguy.

I don't think Nilsson has much value. If he played well I'd probably just keep him.

I think Gryba would be a good 7th dman. I'd prefer to upgrade in terms of a 6th dman.

Thank the good Lord mact is no longer in charge and we can part ways with justin Norris schultz. I agree with moving purcell at the dead line. Some team will pay him 3 or 4 per year and I hope it's not us.

I wouldn't do eberle for hamonic. I think ebs is being underated this year because of his injury and subsequent slow start. I would do our 1st for hamonic if it's 6th over all or later.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

Be fully analytical and use advanced stats and you get a better understanding. Now Younglions was saying shooting percentage was a stat he considered worthwhile (a general stat that is what it is - judge it how you want) He even went as far as saying RNH had an elite shot.

If he was going by shooting percentage I would say on average an elite shot would have to be converting at 16-20% - RNH sits at 9.2%. He shoots as much as Eberle/Draisaitl and has about 40% less goals (both others have 14 goals each)

The conclusion is he isn't a elite shooter, because of not converting at as high of level as guys with as many shots (Eberle/Draisaitl) and he doesn't shoot enough either.



General stats are total limitations. That is what has been used to counter anything I have said. Younglions likes to evalutate using shooting percentage which is a general stat.




In no point in the argument has it referred to RNH and something he does elite or above average, besides discrediting other stats you don't like.
You don't like faceoff percentage, I don't like shooting percentage, but i just proved shooting percentage is a useless stats (which would actually help Younglions argument) yet nothing has been stated when you look at how low of a rate RNH actually scores on.

I think your judgements on the quality of RNH's shot relative to other based solely on shooting percentage is faulty. First off a huge contributing factor to Eberle and Draisaitl converting at a better rate is they both have a far greater tendency to get in real tight to the goalie, whereas Nuge is usually firing just outside of the slot, Nuge is more likely to rack up medium quality scoring chances (average goaltending will likely save roughly 93.5% of these) and Eberle + Draisaitl get more high quality scoring chances (average goaltending will likely save roughly 84.5% of these).

Secondly Eberle has a goal scorers instincts he is good at finding his way out of coverage and into prime scoring areas, whereas RNH is generally playing the role of playmaker which involves him being the one that is holding onto or distributing the puck and is more often the focal point of attention. Eberle also has more deception in his game showing more feints and dekes, often getting the goalie guessing before his shot is even released a lot of his goals are because a goalie bit on a move he made, and lastly Eberle has better goal scoring instincts and better anticipates what the goalie is going to do allowing him to take more optimal courses of action.

Draisaitl has had a lot of pass into the net kind of plays this year, where he has been able to get a good feed in tight and essentially just re-directed the puck into the net, he didn't shoot the puck and beat the goalie clean who was squared up, it is often a case of the goalie scrambling to get over to him and being too late. Draisaitl also has the benefit of his size and there have been cases where he has just straight up boxed a defender out and gotten clean avenues to deposit the odd loose puck directly into the net or used his wingspan and longer stick to make the goalie traverse a greater distance to get over and infront of his shot.

RNH's shot is very sound mechanically in terms of his release he doesn't show much in the way of tells before it comes off his stick rather quickly and cause of this he gives a lot of goalies problems with it even when they are staring directly at him, the velocity being a bit higher or him shooting from closer in would both help him convert at a greater clip. If he could add another 5 MPHR to his wrist shot and just a little more deception, I think he'd surprise a lot of people with how many goals he can score, I'm not sure if Nuge will take that next step, but the margin between pushing him over from having a tough shot to save, to a deadly shot is rather small.

A good example of why your shooting percentage =shot quality does not hold up is Connor McDavid, his shot is nowhere close to Tarasenko or Ovechkin in terms of raw power or in its ability to beat a goalie clean, but when you have a good knack for straight up deking the puck into the back of the net like McDavid it's going to pad your shooting percentage a great deal, his speed and hockey IQ are also going to get him away from the traffic far more often so he will have more quality looks without defense directly impeding him.