GDT: Coyotes at Avalanche
- Thread starter PhoPhan
- Start date
I'm sure some good fortune is involved, but he's also being asked to play #2/#3 minutes when he clearly isn't ready for it. Schlemko/Rundblad are generally used in a more appropriate role. If everyone was healthy and Stone was playing on the bottom pair I think he's quite clearly better there then either of the other two guys. Up until the last 3-4 games I've considered Schlemko a pure negative. Rundblad just hasn't played enough as you said.
CC96
Serious Offender
The style we're playing right now is boring beyond comprehension... and I could not be any happier.
GiveAFlyingPuck
Boring hockey aficionado
PhoPhan
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 14,724
- 100
Agreed on the "not ready" part, but I'm not sure his minutes have been all that tough. Take a look at this chart: http://public.tableausoftware.com/shared/SYG9QQC6C?:display_count=yes
It's true that only Michalek and OEL are facing tougher competition, but Stone isn't that far ahead of anybody else, and he's getting the easiest minutes in terms of offensive zone start percentage (not including Murphy and Rundblad, who have only played a few games apiece). You can also see that his circle is much darker than anyone who plays similar minutes (OEL is about as dark, but he faces tougher opponents in tougher situations).
Demosthenes
Speaker for the dead
CC96
Serious Offender
You kidding? there is nothing boring about this!
I was being facetious guys.
GiveAFlyingPuck
Boring hockey aficionado
CC96
Serious Offender
Now I'm no advanced stats magician when it comes to hockey anyway, but immediately with this chart I sort of question Stone's placement. Pre-Michalek injury he was playing with Klesla or Schlemko. Then he played with OEL. Wouldn't that account for him being smack dab in the middle as "two way" right there? Especially considering his other D partners are in the "sheltered" category. Surely the games where he plays with OEL his placement would be different then the games earlier in the season.
Also I still have a huge problem with the idea of taking a human being's (the coach) decision and adding that into a stat somehow. It might not be totally useless but It basically guarantees I'll never trust any of these numbers at a glance unlike most baseball stats.
CC96
Serious Offender
PhoPhan
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 14,724
- 100
The fancy stats in hockey have a long way to go before they're close to as helpful as the baseball ones, and given the nature of the games I'm skeptical of whether they'll ever pull even, but I think the quality of competition and offensive zone start percentage numbers are useful for context. I would never say a player is better or worse than another player just based on those metrics, but if two players have similar stats otherwise, I'd rather have the one who performed against tougher opponents or in less favorable circumstances.
In this case, OEL and Stone have similar Corsi Relative numbers, but OEL put up those numbers against tougher opponents. He also started 55.6% of his shifts in the defensive zone, as compared to only 45.2% for Stone, so the ice was even more tilted against him.
The point is: no one stat is a magic bullet, but the more information you have to work with, the better an understanding of a player's value you can ascertain.
CC96
Serious Offender
I imagine the unpredictable, fluid nature of hockey makes the advanced stats a lot less accurate than Sabermetrics. At least for now.
CC96
Serious Offender
