Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[Hodge]

And yet you make fun of others that cite Natural Stat Trick when you're being disagreed with.

I disagree with anyone who uses any stat to make sweeping conclusions about a player.

 

[STL Shark]

Dellandrea, Sturm as well as Grundstrom were all consistently healthy scratched the last time they were in the playoffs. Guys like these are all spare parts.

Sturm was part of a loaded but weird Colorado team where only 12 skaters played all 20 playoff games. Bednar preferred Darren Helm over him when given a choice, but that's because Helm was a Cup Winner and playoff veteran that had played almost as many NHL Playoff games as Sturm had played NHL games. He still played 13/20 games that postseason though. Now that Sturm has established as a solid regular, he will garner interest. Teams love 6'3 centers that are faceoff studs for their bottom 6 in the playoffs.

Go ahead and pencil in a 3rd round pick for Sturm (same comp as COL gave up for Yakov Trenin last year).

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I disagree with anyone who uses any stat to make sweeping conclusions about a player.

So you disagree with yourself using CF% to make the sweeping conclusion that Goodrow has been one of their best possession players, no?

 

[Hodge]

So you disagree with yourself using CF% to make the sweeping conclusion that Goodrow has been one of their best possession players, no?

When did I say that? I said he's 4th in 5v5 CF% and 3rd in 5v5 score-adjusted CF% among Sharks forwards which are factual statements.

A sweeping conclusion would be arguing he is a good or bad player based solely on those stats.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

When did I say that? I said he's 4th in 5v5 CF% and 3rd in 5v5 score-adjusted CF% among Sharks forwards which are factual statements.

A sweeping conclusion would be arguing he is a good or bad player based solely on those stats.

You said it when you said you disagree with anyone who uses any stat to make sweeping conclusions about a player. Using CF% and score-adjusted CF% is still pretty much the same thing when other CF% numbers that are likely providing a better picture of the CF% numbers show him in the 9th-12th range among the team. At worst, it cancels out your numbers. In reality, it's a better figure that more accurately reflects Goodrow's possession numbers. Either way, it's still a pretty sweeping conclusion for possession ability even if one were to agree it may be the best number to use. Just because it's the best doesn't mean it's accurate nor does it mean that makes the conclusions not sweeping.

 

[Hodge]

You said it when you said you disagree with anyone who uses any stat to make sweeping conclusions about a player. Using CF% and score-adjusted CF% is still pretty much the same thing when other CF% numbers that are likely providing a better picture of the CF% numbers show him in the 9th-12th range among the team. At worst, it cancels out your numbers. In reality, it's a better figure that more accurately reflects Goodrow's possession numbers. Either way, it's still a pretty sweeping conclusion for possession ability even if one were to agree it may be the best number to use. Just because it's the best doesn't mean it's accurate nor does it mean that makes the conclusions not sweeping.

No, I mean when did I say Goodrow has been one of our best possession players? I simply cited his CF% stats in response to a post claiming he's allergic to puck possession.

You're trying to skew the numbers by cutting an already small sample size in half and ignoring Goodrow's zone starts and linemates.

Fundamentally I just think it's dumb when people complain about line combos as if this isn't still a shallow and weak roster. It's perfectly reasonable to give Goodrow a shot on the top line. There aren't many better options.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No, I mean when did I say Goodrow has been one of our best possession players? I simply cited his CF% stats in response to a post claiming he's allergic to puck possession.

You're trying to skew the numbers by cutting an already small sample size in half and ignoring Goodrow's zone starts and linemates.

Fundamentally I just think it's dumb when people complain about line combos as if this isn't still a shallow and weak roster. It's perfectly reasonable to give Goodrow a shot on the top line. There aren't many better options.

It's implied when you use it as a way to defend him on the top line because he's 4th in CF% and say there are hardly better options. If you want to argue against that, go for it. You can frame it as skewing the numbers but it's using the most relevant of those numbers when that's still about 70% of his five on five shifts. In other words, the most important situations within the most often played situation that impacts the game for the team. If you're going to cry small sample size then everyone, including yours about his effectiveness, is null. I don't think shutting down the conversation about how well Goodrow has played in 17 games like that is at all productive or honest.

While I can agree to an extent that it's reasonable to give Goodrow a shot on the top line, it's also perfectly reasonable to complain about that decision because even within this shallow and weak roster, there are definitively better options based on how they've played up to this point. You just want people to shut up and accept the decision.