Around the NHL 2013-2014 Part II: The Playoff Edition

[SoupNazi]

To use your "work in real life" portrait, the equivalent of your logic is essentially claiming someone doesn't deserve his paycheck and his overall performance is terrible because he had a bad day at work (IE, something that everyone will have in life).

Is that logical? No, I think not.

Is it logical to expect a goal scorer to score goals, irregardless of how good his "advanced stats" might be?

Yes, I think so.

 

[Heaton]

To use your "work in real life" portrait, the equivalent of your logic is essentially claiming someone doesn't deserve his paycheck and his overall performance is terrible because he had a bad day at work (IE, something that everyone will have in life).

Is that logical? No, I think not.

If you're a salesperson and you only get 2 sales in 100 attempts, you're probably not getting a pat on the back from your boss, especially when you're getting paid to make sales and being paid more than any of your co-workers.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

Is it logical to expect a goal scorer to score goals, irregardless of how good his "advanced stats" might be?

Yes, I think so.

If you've ever bothered to actually read anything I have been saying up to this point, you would understand the fallaciousness of your reasoning.

 

[Heaton]

If you've ever bothered to actually read anything I have been saying up to this point, you would understand the fallaciousness of your reasoning.

Teams don't succeed without production. If the Rangers lose in 5 to the Penguins all of your advanced stats don't get them any wins. Goals might, though.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Just wow.

 

[SoupNazi]

If you've ever bothered to actually read anything I have been saying up to this point, you would understand the fallaciousness of your reasoning.

I've been reading. And you're not paying attention:

Goals win games, not nice Corsi numbers.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

Teams don't succeed without production. If the Rangers lose in 5 to the Penguins all of your advanced stats don't get them any wins. Goals might, though.

At the rate I have to repeat myself, people are going to start thinking I'm a narcissist.

Your line of reasoning is bad. It is the opposite of good reasoning, because it is based on bad premises.

Goal scoring is the product of, you guessed it, SHOOTING PERCENTAGE. SHOOTING PERCENTAGE is the percentage of all shots taken that are scored for a goal. Over the span of several seasons, SHOOTING PERCENTAGE can be sustainable. However, over the span of smaller samples, like say 10 GAMES IN THE PLAYOFFS, SHOOTING PERCENTAGE has proven to be volatile. Volatile means that a person's SHOOTING PERCENTAGE can vary extremely in SMALL SAMPLINGS.

Thus, when you are judging Rick Nash for having a 0.0% shooting percentage over 10 games, you are basing your reasoning on SMALL SAMPLE SIZES. That is not logical. That is the opposite of logical. Why? Because in SMALL SAMPLE SIZES, averages, like Rick Nash's career 12.7% Shooting% mean jack squat.

I've been reading. And you're not paying attention:

Goals win games, not nice Corsi numbers.

Wow... What is this I don't even.

Here is the flaw in your reasoning that you seem to be conveniently ignoring, because I certainly said something akin to this earlier.

Goals are the end. Corsi is the means to that end. Shooting more pucks on goal, controlling the puck, all of that is CONDUSIVE to goal scoring (And goal preventing). Nobody with a simplistic knowledge of the game will disagree with this simple fact of hockey.

What you are essentially arguing, to use a somewhat limited but still useful analogy, is that as long as the engine works, you don't care exactly HOW the engine works. That's bad logic. Maybe an engine runs but is not particularly efficient? Maybe a lawn mower engine is designed for efficient use, but is being incorrectly used as an engine for a Semi-truck?

 

[Heaton]

In 26 playoff games, Rick Nash has 2 goals. 2 goals on 96 shots. That is not a small sample size, sorry.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

In 26 playoff games, Rick Nash has 2 goals. 2 goals on 96 shots. That is not a small sample size, sorry.

Nope, sorry. 26 Games is 31% of an entire NHL Season. That is the epitome of small sample sizes. You want multiple seasons worth of data.

 

[Heaton]

Nope, sorry. 26 Games is 31% of an entire NHL Season. That is the epitome of small sample sizes. You want multiple seasons worth of data.

The NHL playoffs are all about making the most of your chances. You don't win a cup or succeed in the playoffs because you're guaranteed to get chance after chance. You make the playoffs, you make the most of it. It's why guys like David Krejci, Evgeni Malkin, Henrik Zetterberg are so good. They didn't have to rely on fluffy corsi numbers for people to try and artificially make them look like they're doing positive things. They actually went out and produced, even in 'small sample sizes'.

So sure, if you want to justify Nash continually not producing year after year after year while the Rangers lose year after year after year, go ahead. I'm just glad he's not not on my team accumulating awesome corsi numbers with zero real production.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

The NHL playoffs are all about making the most of your chances.

I will stop you right here, because this is where you are very wrong. There is literally no difference between a hockey game played in the regular season and a hockey game played in the playoffs. The difference you are attempting to contrive is that you can win a 'championship' by winning 16 games in the playoffs.

But the fact of the matter is, it's still a hockey game. Hockey players play the game the same way they played it in the regular season. And so it stands, statistics will behave the same way they do in the regular season.

But as I've been REPEATEDLY harping on, the point YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, is that the playoffs are all small sample sizes. In small sample sizes, the Washington Capitals can get Halak'd. In small sample sizes, Bryan Bickell can go nuts. In small sample sizes, guys like Alexander Semin and Rick Nash, THROUGH ABSOLUTELY NO LACK OF EFFORT, can be held to a shooting% of 0.0. Why?

Small Sample Sizes. Athletes are random number generators, and numbers generate VERY randomly in small samplings, of which you can create false narratives by a player.

 

[Heaton]

Small Sample Sizes. Athletes are random number generators, and numbers generate VERY randomly in small samplings, of which you can create false narratives by a player.

Hah, no. But that's OK.

 

[SoupNazi]

Small Sample Sizes. Athletes are random number generators, and numbers generate VERY randomly in small samplings, of which you can create false narratives by a player.

If we look at his PLAYOFF NUMBERS, 26 games is a large sample size.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

if we look at his playoff numbers, 26 games is a large sample size.

nope, sorry. 26 games is 31% of an entire nhl season. That is the epitome of small sample sizes. You want multiple seasons worth of data.

Please READ WHAT I'M SAYING FOR ONCE

Hah, no. But that's OK.

I'm 100% confidence you have no reasoning behind this at all and that you are pulling this out of your rear end.

 

[SoupNazi]

Please READ WHAT I'M SAYING FOR ONCE



I'm 100% confidence you have no reasoning behind this at all and that you are pulling this out of your rear end.

Please read what I am saying:

Twenty-six playoff games. Many players play in less playoff games than that over the course of a career.

We're talking playoff performances here. Not regular season. Results matter in the playoffs.

Corsi doesn't win Cups. Goals do.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

Please read what I am saying:

Twenty-six playoff games. Many players play in less playoff games than that over the course of a career.

We're talking playoff performances here. Not regular season. Results matter in the playoffs.

Corsi doesn't win Cups. Goals do.

Apparently, when I wrote this post several posts up, you decided to ignore it because it debunked your logic. You know, confirmation bias?

But I'll quote it just so you can read it and understand that you are wrong.

I will stop you right here, because this is where you are very wrong. There is literally no difference between a hockey game played in the regular season and a hockey game played in the playoffs. The difference you are attempting to contrive is that you can win a 'championship' by winning 16 games in the playoffs.

But the fact of the matter is, it's still a hockey game. Hockey players play the game the same way they played it in the regular season. And so it stands, statistics will behave the same way they do in the regular season.

But as I've been REPEATEDLY harping on, the point YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, is that the playoffs are all small sample sizes. In small sample sizes, the Washington Capitals can get Halak'd. In small sample sizes, Bryan Bickell can go nuts. In small sample sizes, guys like Alexander Semin and Rick Nash, THROUGH ABSOLUTELY NO LACK OF EFFORT, can be held to a shooting% of 0.0. Why?

Small Sample Sizes. Athletes are random number generators, and numbers generate VERY randomly in small samplings, of which you can create false narratives by a player.

 

[SoupNazi]

Apparently, when I wrote this post several posts up, you decided to ignore it because it debunked your logic. You know, confirmation bias?

But I'll quote it just so you can read it and understand that you are wrong.

And I refuted your point several posts up, and you chose to ignore me.

Corsi and advanced stats aren't everything. Rick Nash isn't paid almost $8 million a year to put up pretty Corsi numbers. He's paid to score goals. He's not earning his paycheck.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

And I refuted your point several posts up, and you chose to ignore me.

No. No you didn't. You're just repeating the same bogus logic over and over again, ignoring anything I've said. On the other hand, I have used numbers and statistical reasoning to prove that these traditional narratives are BS. To this point, you have not used any substance whatsoever other than the weight of your own words (baseless argument).

 

[Frk It]

Franzen gets killed by the media when he's not scoring goals. No one gives a **** about his Corsi.

GM's don't hand out contracts for good Corsi if there is a lack of goals and assists. So I'm sure by the same token, they get pissed when their expensive players aren't putting up goals and assists.

Ask the Rangers GM, I'm sure he feels the same exact way.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

My God what is happening here.

This is like an OPS debate or something before I stopped talking baseball because people irrationally bought in hook line and sinker. Corsi numbers can be a factor if they are your only factor, well hard to have reasonable discussions. A team full of all corsi numbers might drive possession all night, but I will take the guy that is a big goal scorer countering it with a big goalie at this time of year. Goals matter, Rick Nash is paid to score them, he isn't and he is in his prime with ample opportunities. People rake Franzen over the coals around here, apparently all he would have to do is pump weak wristers on goal and dangle into worse chances more often and if his possession numbers went up he would be completely defended by at least one poster.

Rick Nash has to do more than he is doing, or at this point maybe he should be possessing the puck less and looking for the counter it isn't working. This reminds me of our continuous debate on Scuderi who was a defensive anchor on two Cup winning teams in the last 5 years. Corsi tells you he stinks, everything else that matters tells you otherwise. It is good to have these numbers back up what you're seeing, when they don't you ask why. In this case it is because All-star and Wednesday night Nash, puts up his numbers in a lot of meaningless situations, he always has. He is a good player and a dangerous player so you back off and respect him, but when the chips are down and you make him earn it he has historically done an awful job possession or no and it isn't looking any different in New York, just more eyes watching his same old act.

I mean how else are you a Superstar in this league after leading your team to just one sweep in ten years. True superstars do more than that, sorry this is what he is and those that wanted to sacrifice an arm and a leg be thankful Columbus wouldn't trade with Detroit.

By the way you know who probably had great corsi numbers in our series last year, one of Bobby Ryan or Corey Perry, guessing more on Perry. Anaheim went home because well A.) Hiller was outplayed by Howard and reason B.) Corey Perry in a series that tight he has to score and he did nothing with all of his great chances and scoring opportunities while his line was driving chances.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I want to replace Johan Franzen's name with Nash's in this conversation and see how strange the argument would look.

Not saying Franzen doesn't deserve criticism, but it's a funny scenario.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I want to replace Johan Franzen's name with Nash's in this conversation and see how strange the argument would look.

Not saying Franzen doesn't deserve criticism, but it's a funny scenario.

Franzen actually at least has a high point to argue here, at this point Nash would have to go on a Franzen esk 07-09 tear to even enter that debate without laughing.

The difference on D isn't going to be as big as some will make it out to be either.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

Franzen gets killed by the media when he's not scoring goals. No one gives a **** about his Corsi.

GM's don't hand out contracts for good Corsi if there is a lack of goals and assists. So I'm sure by the same token, they get pissed when their expensive players aren't putting up goals and assists.

Ask the Rangers GM, I'm sure he feels the same exact way.

So basically, appeal to the masses (Which is a logical fallacy, by the way).

My God what is happening here.

This is like an OPS debate or something before I stopped talking baseball because people irrationally bought in hook line and sinker. Corsi numbers can be a factor if they are your only factor, well hard to have reasonable discussions. A team full of all corsi numbers might drive possession all night,

Do you want to know what a team full of corsi numbers looks like?

2
This

This

This

This


AND THIS

but I will take the guy that is a big goal scorer countering it with a big goalie at this time of year. Goals matter, Rick Nash is paid to score them, he isn't and he is in his prime with ample opportunities. People rake Franzen over the coals around here, apparently all he would have to do is pump weak wristers on goal and dangle into worse chances more often and if his possession numbers went up he would be completely defended by at least one poster.

Do you not understand the concept of small sample sizes and their relationship to Shooting%? If you don't, then stop saying this. You have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

Rick Nash has to do more than he is doing,

What more can he do? He is literally doing EVERYTHING RIGHT that he needs to do in order to help his team. HE ISN'T SCORING BECAUSE THERE IS A GOALTENDER GUARDING THE FRIGGIN NET, AND HE IS STOPPING ALL OF NASH'S SHOTS ON GOAL OVER A SMALL SAMPLING OF 10 GAMES.

This reminds me of our continuous debate on Scuderi who was a defensive anchor on two Cup winning teams in the last 5 years. Corsi tells you he stinks, everything else that matters tells you otherwise.

This is reverse chronological snobbery. Scuderi may have been good then, but he's not now. He stunk last year. He stunk this year. His job is to get the puck away from his opponents, yet his opponents are holding on to the puck longer than his team is when he is on the ice. HE IS NOT GOOD NOW. Todd Bertuzzi was once a premiere player in hockey. HE WAS NOT THE LAST TWO YEARS.

He is a good player and a dangerous player so you back off and respect him, but when the chips are down and you make him earn it he has historically done an awful job possession

This is utter nonsense. Several posts back, I pointed out how Nash holds the best possession numbers among all Rangers forwards. He even has the best possession numbers tonight amongst ALL Rangers players.

I mean how else are you a Superstar in this league after leading your team to just one sweep in ten years. True superstars do more than that, sorry this is what he is and those that wanted to sacrifice an arm and a leg be thankful Columbus wouldn't trade with Detroit.

This logic is laughable. By this logic, Daniel Alfredsson is a bad player because he doesn't have a ring. It would have also apply to Raymond Borque had he not won a ring. Heck, it's the same ******** reasoning to make Peyton Manning out to be a bad QB because he only has one ring. FORGET ALL OF THE NUMBERS HE POSTED THAT HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN ALMOST EVERY QB IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

So if Nash has such great possession numbers, why isn't it showing up on the scoresheet?

He's getting paid an elite forward's salary. An elite forward puts pucks in the net.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

lol is this guy serious.

Nash is ****ing trash. if you want him, you can have him.