Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL XIII: Off Season Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter *Bob Richards*
  • Start date Start date
  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
GWOW said:
I know, right? They also beat Tampa, who was 10th.

Pitt, who was 15th, beat Columbus who was 13th.

In 2013, Pitt was 18th but miraculously beat the Islanders, who were 13th. Then they beat 7th-ranked Ottawa.

Ottawa was 7th, but beat the 6th Ranked Habs

Chicago was 3rd but beat the top-ranked Kings.

San Jose was 11th and beat 8th-ranked Vancouver.

I'm losing count. Is that 8 series in the last two years where a better possession team was beaten in a playoff series?
Click to expand...
8 out of 30.
....
....
...
...
 
Brian Boyle said:
8 out of 30.
....
....
...
...
Click to expand...

How about individual series?

Ottawa, Boston, Pitt, Chicago, and Vancouver all had the edge (in the case of Chi, Bos and Ott a massive edge) in CF% in the 2012 first round but lost.

5/8 -- 63%.

In the 2012 opening round, The majority of teams who were worse at possessing the puck than their opponent won the playoff series.

Sooooooooo, we've gone from one team winning one series (Habs v Bos) to eight playoff series in three years, to the majority of the opening round in a random playoff year.

Ok.
 
The vitriolic opposition to #fancystats is why I find myself more and more in favor of them.

Any team can beat any team on a given night. In the playoffs, where all you need is 4 games to advance, the best team doesn't always win. However, you find team basing their disdain on Corsi to these ridiculously small sample sizes. MTL is not a better team than Boston, despite the fact that MTL won 4 games against Boston in a 7 game stretch. The chart that -31- and Zil constantly post illustrates this nicely.

But, if there is convincing correlation between stats and wins, why would you not want to go after players who are good at what those statistics measure with their play?

It's clear that certain things are overvalued around the league. Guys like Orpik, Deryk Engelland, and yes, Tanner Glass, were paid a lot of money after not contributing much to their teams wins. On the other hand, better plays like Marcel Goc and Lee Stempniak are paid much less money to contribute more to a team.

Smart front offices will fill their bottom sixes with guys like Stempniak, Goc, and Pouliot (who's overpaid now, IMO, but was very good value for much of his career). Same goes for defense.

Who would you rather have-- Tanner Glass for 3 years over 1.45, Engelland for whatever his ludicrous cap hit is, or Lee Stempniak for 1 year at 900k? The good team will pick Stempniak.

Also, the huge flaw in your argument, GWOW, is that every team you mentioned except Pitt (which is noted as an outlier due to how good Crosby and Malkin are) were top 10 (or relatively close) in CF.
 
puck possession isnt the be all end all.

you can possess the hell outta the puck, but if you cant score, it doesnt matter. the Kings went ******* in the playoffs and scored at a berzerk level, but they SUCKED in the regular season. Gabby fixed a lot of their problems.

Penguins arent a great possession team from what i recall, but they can finish. it overcomes #fancystats when you can flat out finish, and when you dont finish it makes the #fancystats seem useless.

shooting percentage along with puck possession is where its at. gotta find a way to aggregate those 2 stats to form a new stat.

though i guess the obvious stat would be call the win-loss record. because if you have the puck a ton, and put the puck into the net at a high rate, you will likely win a ton of games...unless your goalie sucks.
 
BlueshirtBlitz said:
The vitriolic opposition to #fancystats is why I find myself more and more in favor of them.

Any team can beat any team on a given night. In the playoffs, where all you need is 4 games to advance, the best team doesn't always win. However, you find team basing their disdain on Corsi to these ridiculously small sample sizes. MTL is not a better team than Boston, despite the fact that MTL won 4 games against Boston in a 7 game stretch. The chart that -31- and Zil constantly post illustrates this nicely.

But, if there is convincing correlation between stats and wins, why would you not want to go after players who are good at what those statistics measure with their play?

It's clear that certain things are overvalued around the league. Guys like Orpik, Deryk Engelland, and yes, Tanner Glass, were paid a lot of money after not contributing much to their teams wins. On the other hand, better plays like Marcel Goc and Lee Stempniak are paid much less money to contribute more to a team.

Smart front offices will fill their bottom sixes with guys like Stempniak, Goc, and Pouliot (who's overpaid now, IMO, but was very good value for much of his career). Same goes for defense.

Who would you rather have-- Tanner Glass for 3 years over 1.45, Engelland for whatever his ludicrous cap hit is, or Lee Stempniak for 1 year at 900k? The good team will pick Stempniak.

Also, the huge flaw in your argument, GWOW, is that every team you mentioned except Pitt (which is noted as an outlier due to how good Crosby and Malkin are) were top 10 (or relatively close) in CF.
Click to expand...


Only you see it as a flaw. The team who wins is better. The team with a 22.8 pp is better than a 21.9 power play.

You're also assuming a good possession guy on one team will be a good possession guy on another and another etc.

Puck possession is a byproduct of an overall team philosophy. But you can't assume Zetterberg will be as strong on the puck in Carolina as he was in Detroit.

Perfect example: to change on the fly or just change, only a coach can order his defensemen to hold onto the puck, or the forwards rag it back into their zone until the line change is complete in order to keep possession. But almost all coaches advocate the dump and chase. Babcock, Sutter, Quenneville all advocate maintain control of the puck across the line.

It helps when you have word-class talent like Lidstrom, Doughty, Keith, Kane etc following your instruction.

Cherry talks about it all the time. But most players are lazy and take the easy way out to complete a change. If your players suck, then you run the risk of a turnover and a 5-on-2, so coaches say dump it in.

Dump and chase is hit or miss. Teams who dump the puck in to complete every change lose the puck. Watch the Sabres. All they do is dump the puck in. They dump it in on odd man rushes.

Lidstrom was the king of keeping possession to make line changes.
But Bourque was the master of the dump in to give the rusher a chance to recover.

Overall, Corsi is a marginal indicator at best. It's more for fringe players. The depth guys. The majority of this very fan base had no idea that Stralman was an elite puck possessor based on Corsi even though all of us watched his entire Ranger career shift by shift..

So "Stralman is solid" graduated to "Stralman's fenwick/Corsi rank in the upper portion of right-handed dmen born on Tuesdays in suburban neighborhoods during weekends while HBO played Fraggle Rock blah blah blah.

Please.

Did they use Corsi to pick Team Canada? Pouliot was 15th among ALL Canadian forwards in CF. Crosby was 35th

The stars are the stars. I dont need possession numbers to validate or support what I see with my own eyes. If the geeks want to use it to try to win arguments, be my guest.
 
You're definitely entitled to think that the team who wins 4 out of 7 games is always the better team.

I'm entitled to think that's a very narrow viewpoint that doesn't lend itself to building a good team. If we're deadset on using small sample sizes to determine the "best teams", are we ready to accept that Girardi is gonna be an absolute trainwreck for the rest of his contract? He sure was in the Kings series.

And Corsi isn't always for the depth guys (which is still important-- getting a team full of Pouliots and Stempniaks instead of Tanner Glass would be pretty huge for a good team). It's why Dustin Byfuglien is a better defender than people give him credit for. It's why Patrice Bergeron is stupidly underrated around the league. Etc, etc. But we both already have our minds made up, so there's no point in arguing.

And no, "Stralman is solid" evolved into "Stralman is significantly better than Klein, and I would trade Klein to resign Stralman if I could. s.
 
BlueshirtBlitz said:
You're definitely entitled to think that the team who wins 4 out of 7 games is always the better team.

I'm entitled to think that's a very narrow viewpoint that doesn't lend itself to building a good team. If we're deadset on using small sample sizes to determine the "best teams", are we ready to accept that Girardi is gonna be an absolute trainwreck for the rest of his contract? He sure was in the Kings series.

And Corsi isn't always for the depth guys (which is still important-- getting a team full of Pouliots and Stempniaks instead of Tanner Glass would be pretty huge for a good team). It's why Dustin Byfuglien is a better defender than people give him credit for. It's why Patrice Bergeron is stupidly underrated around the league. Etc, etc. But we both already have our minds made up, so there's no point in arguing.

And no, "Stralman is solid" evolved into "Stralman is significantly better than Klein, and I would trade Klein to resign Stralman if I could. s.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I just realized that in 2013, Bobby Sanguinetti and Pat Wiercoch were top-5 among ALL NHL defensemen in CF.

And they tried to keep Stralman. He rejected their extension offer in March.
 
GWOW said:
Sorry. I just realized that in 2013, Bobby Sanguinetti and Pat Wiercoch were top-5 among ALL NHL defensemen in CF.

And they tried to keep Stralman. He rejected their extension offer in March.
Click to expand...

Do you mean in the 37 games he played, in likely very sheltered minutes?

Small sample sizes.
 
I *almost* hoped the rangers grabbed MDZ to pair him with Klein to see how he could play.

Well, now we can whoop his ass in Philly
 
Welp, can't cheer for a career resurgence for him. Down with DZ!
 
Well, I never thought I'd be cheering against MDZ but I'm looking forward to it. 82-1-2-3 -91
 
BlueshirtBlitz said:
Do you mean in the 37 games he played, in likely very sheltered minutes?

Small sample sizes.
Click to expand...

14:45.

37/48 is about 80pct of the season.

You guys love to tap dance. It went from one playoff series to the minority of a postseason to small sample sizes.

It's a flawed stat. Go look up the individual numbers. There are dozens of scrubs over 80 games who had better CF% than some of the games best players.

Oh, I forgot. They can't be stars if their CF% is not in the top tier.

Brassard AKA the 175th best forward in the NHL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom