Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Cody Ceci Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's still absolutely clueless in the offensive zone. He hesitates about three times before getting his shot off every attempt.
 
At this point in his career Ceci is playing a more central role than he is ready for. Going head to head with the Bruins top line is pretty tough. He did ok but better if there was an option to give that assignment to someone else.
 
Hands of Stone said:
"Cody Ceci and Dion Phaneuf - Stop the presses! The Ottawa defence pairing, which was one of the worst in the league when it comes to possession stats this season, had a dominant Game Six at Boston (19 for, 2 against, 90.5 CF%, 8-0 scoring chances)."

-Scott Cullen, TSN
Click to expand...
Yeah great game. Agreed.

But a little hypocritical for some people to call it a great game, because when those numbers are reversed (they usually are), they STILL say Ceci had a great game.
Or maybe game 6 changes their opinion of what a great game actually looks like.

also I wonder if the 2/5 pairing was matched up with different Sens forwards to play the Bergeron line?
 
Burrowsaurus said:
Yeah great game. Agreed.

But a little hypocritical for some people to call it a great game, because when those numbers are reversed (they usually are), they STILL say Ceci had a great game.
Or maybe game 6 changes their opinion of what a great game actually looks like.

also I wonder if the 2/5 pairing was matched up with different Sens forwards to play the Bergeron line?
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone pointing to Ceci's Corsi as proof of him having a great game, those numbers came up well after the game after the bulk of the discussion died down. Who's being hypocritical?

Just because he can have a great game without glowing fancy stats doesn't mean he can't have a great game with them....

edit: wrt your second point, very good chance he was with Pageau and Hoffman, as those two faced Marchand's line by far the most, and also were Ceci's most common forward linemates by a fair margin.
 
Last edited:
Micklebot said:
I don't recall anyone pointing to Ceci's Corsi as proof of him having a great game, those numbers came up well after the game after the bulk of the discussion died down. Who's being hypocritical?

Just because he can have a great game without glowing fancy stats doesn't mean he can't have a great game with them....
Click to expand...

Man I can't stand fancy stats. You shouldn't need them to say/prove if someone had a good game. It's very easy to tell by watching.
 
Micklebot said:
I don't recall anyone pointing to Ceci's Corsi as proof of him having a great game, those numbers came up well after the game after the bulk of the discussion died down. Who's being hypocritical?

Just because he can have a great game without glowing fancy stats doesn't mean he can't have a great game with them....

edit: wrt your second point, very good chance he was with Pageau and Hoffman, as those two faced Marchand's line by far the most, and also were Ceci's most common forward linemates by a fair margin.
Click to expand...

Said it wOULD be hypocritical. To Bondratimes post, I agree to some extent. Corsi is being overplayed because I don't need a stat to tell me who had bad corsi. It's visible straight away. It was visible how ceci played in game 6. And fancy stats back it up. Just like it's visible how he plays on othern nights. And coincidence. Poor fancy stats.

Edit. I did not say "would".

But it's being pointed out. So I wonder if the same guys who think ceci always plays well regardless of what those stats say still think he played well? I think they should but how is there zero change in their opinion when those same stats (that could potentially be pointed out to show his good play) are horribly slanted against him ?
 
He needs to improve his puck control, if he can do that it would really help with his decision making with the puck.
 
HZH said:
He needs to improve his puck control, if he can do that it would really help with his decision making with the puck.
Click to expand...
I believe part of this issue ,is his want to not make mistakes.Hopefully the coaches has reminded him that he does have more time than he thinks he does.And to calm down and use his skill and head
 
Burrowsaurus said:
Said it wOULD be hypocritical. To Bondratimes post, I agree to some extent. Corsi is being overplayed because I don't need a stat to tell me who had bad corsi. It's visible straight away. It was visible how ceci played in game 6. And fancy stats back it up. Just like it's visible how he plays on othern nights. And coincidence. Poor fancy stats.

Edit. I did not say "would".

But it's being pointed out. So I wonder if the same guys who think ceci always plays well regardless of what those stats say still think he played well? I think they should but how is there zero change in their opinion when those same stats (that could potentially be pointed out to show his good play) are horribly slanted against him ?
Click to expand...

I'm a pretty big Ceci critic and thought he had a great game 5 as well as 6. I assume his advanced stats were much poorer in the former but I haven't checked on that.
 
Burrowsaurus said:
Said it wOULD be hypocritical. To Bondratimes post, I agree to some extent. Corsi is being overplayed because I don't need a stat to tell me who had bad corsi. It's visible straight away. It was visible how ceci played in game 6. And fancy stats back it up. Just like it's visible how he plays on othern nights. And coincidence. Poor fancy stats.

Edit. I did not say "would".

But it's being pointed out. So I wonder if the same guys who think ceci always plays well regardless of what those stats say still think he played well? I think they should but how is there zero change in their opinion when those same stats (that could potentially be pointed out to show his good play) are horribly slanted against him ?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone thinks Ceci always plays well, but for the sake of responding to your question, I imagine that the rationale would be that context is important (ie deployment), and that not all good games are equally good. Lastly, there's the aspect of evaluating an individual's play as something distinct and separate from the effectiveness of the lines they are playing on.
 
Not sure why and when this became another analytics debate. Cody Ceci fails that eye test as well as the statistical breakdown of his time on the ice.

"Analytics", "fancy stats" or whatever former players and radio personalities tell you to ignore are just stats. Stats just like goals are a stat. Stats are stats. No need for fancy classifications. Corsi is a statistic just like goals are.

Certainly feels like the pro-stats people can't stand Ceci, while anyone who hates the so-called "fancy stats" feel like they need to stick up for Ceci. Strange dynamic.

Ceci is a young defenceman who definitely has a place on any NHL blueline, however, the way he is used here is bizarre and definitely ineffective. For a guy who was drafted as an "offensive d-man", he has a long, long way to go on that end and defensively, his decision making is quite slow.
 
Chezzz said:
Not sure why and when this became another analytics debate. Cody Ceci fails that eye test as well as the statistical breakdown of his time on the ice.

"Analytics", "fancy stats" or whatever former players and radio personalities tell you to ignore are just stats. Stats just like goals are a stat. Stats are stats. No need for fancy classifications. Corsi is a statistic just like goals are.

Certainly feels like the pro-stats people can't stand Ceci, while anyone who hates the so-called "fancy stats" feel like they need to stick up for Ceci. Strange dynamic.

Ceci is a young defenceman who definitely has a place on any NHL blueline, however, the way he is used here is bizarre and definitely ineffective. For a guy who was drafted as an "offensive d-man", he has a long, long way to go on that end and defensively, his decision making is quite slow.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't
 
I don't mind advanced stats a resource to evaluate for teams you don't see often. I don't like the use of them on HF to prove a stance or a point in isolation. Their seems to be a perception that posting advanced stats that back your argument on a player somehow wins the argument. To me that usage gives them a bad name. Scouts going to games , watching how the team plays, how the player plays in situations is the way to go to evaluate players imo. Statistics offer something but don't provide any where close to a sufficient or complete picture in a fast team game like hockey
 
Chezzz said:
Ceci (as usual) has trouble tying up his man in front of the net:

"Well, that's Anderson's fault, that rebound shouldn't have happened"

Just curious, what made everyone "think" he had a good game yesterday? He looks lost out there, even yesterday. Team won in spite of him. I cringe everytime he is on the ice.
Click to expand...

Patrice Bergeron is one of the best players in the world and is very strong on the puck. It was a 50/50 play. If you are expecting the D-man to win 100% (or even just 80%) of those battles, then you certainly don't know what you are talking about. You are just a Ceci hater like you admitted and hence have no credibility on the subject. You painted yourself in the corner already. Now, there is not a single knowledgeable poster out here who will take your Ceci comments very seriously.

If you think it was a good rebound to give up by a NHL goalie, good for you. I know I would be pissed at myself for given up that rebound and I am just an amateur goalie.
 
starling said:
For sure.
Corsi gives you much bigger sample size(thousands vs hundreds) and helps you better evaluate a player than goals.
Click to expand...

Yes, Corsi is a better tool than goals scored...

Can't wait for the Corsi winner to be announced at the awards show

58b60830d26ef5b1f63fd4edb732fe5c220cba41465f207836d5bf861c5ece40.jpg
 
BondraTime said:
Yes, Corsi is a better tool than goals scored...

Can't wait for the Corsi winner to be announced at the awards show
Click to expand...

Goals are not everything. But perhaps you are one of those who think Ryan Dzingel is twice the player Joe Thornton is because he scored twice as many goals, I dunno.
 
starling said:
For sure.
Corsi gives you much bigger sample size(thousands vs hundreds) and helps you better evaluate a player than goals.
Click to expand...

The issue is that sample size is over a long period of time and people do change - not to mention coaches, other players, systems, injuries, matchups, etc...

This isn't like a traditional population sample where you can instantly increase it at one set point in time.
 
starling said:
Goals are not everything. But perhaps you are one of those who think Ryan Dzingel is twice the player Joe Thornton is because he scored twice as many goals, I dunno.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Not at all. That also has literally nothing to do with Corsi vs. goals :laugh:

You probably think Wiercioch is twice the player than Karlsson was because he had better corsi, I dunno. (Equally stupid assumption)
 
Ceci has an outstanding game yesterday both with the puck and in his own defensive zone. Won tons of one on one battles and quickly transitioned. Took a lot of pressure over a Karlsson that appeared to be in a lot off pain.
 
FolignoQuantumLeap said:
Ceci has an outstanding game yesterday both with the puck and in his own defensive zone. Won tons of one on one battles and quickly transitioned. Took a lot of pressure over a Karlsson that appeared to be in a lot off pain.
Click to expand...

Ceci was easily playing his worst game of the year yesterday until they got into the overtime periods where he suddenly turned into Rod Langway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom