Post-Game Talk: GAME 19: Canucks 1, Rangers 2: Point streak over! Ice bags brought out.

[timw33]

Tim Schaller getting 3x the league minimum salary is stunning.

 

[valkynax]

Tim Schaller getting 3x the league minimum salary is stunning.

Say wha?

 

[Grub]

As much as we crap on Edler being terrible at the point the alternatives as you can see here are even worse.

Our PP was good with Baertchi, Edler and Boeser on the lineup, now it looks like trash.

Also I think they should send Gaudette down, he looks overwhelmed out there.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

"We're missing 3 of our top 5 guys on the PP. It's not just your first unit it's our 2nd unit; it's a trickle-down effect. Our guys are trying. There's no secret sauce you can find and magically get PP goals. I'd like to get more PP time." - Green

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Malhotra is way better as per that stat you showed, unless you think that difference is insignificant?

It’s not that significant. Neither of them were scorers and a 0.05 ppg difference isn’t a whole lot.

 

[Intangibos]

It wasn't just faceoffs he was good at, though. That's only one aspect of the good defensive play at which Malhotra excelled.

That's my point though. There seems to be a huge misunderstanding with certain posters on this board about the objective of hockey. Score more goals than your opponent. The wider your margin of outscoring in terms of goals and % is one of the things that determines, along with how "streaky" a player is, what the variance is. Then they understand that there are multiple things that go into outscoring your opponent.

It's like the Sutter vs Bonino thing all over again. Sutter is better in his own zone, Bonino scores more points and just isn't in his zone as often. If you aren't in your zone, you aren't getting scored on. If Gaunce is on the ice for 5GF and 0GA and Granlund is on the ice for 10GF and 5GA they are pretty much equally effective with Gaunce having lower volatility in his play to defend a lead. Obviously there are other factors such as entertainment value, which is a very real thing as I'd rather watch a trash but exciting Canuck team than a mediocre/above average but boring Canuck team, but the effectiveness is at least somewhat equal. I'm actually unsure if goal differential is more impactful in terms of just raw numbers or %, I haven't really looked into it that much I'm just saying what I think makes sense/is obvious hoping I'm not wrong. I do think the thought is correct though.

So when it comes down to "do you score more than your opponents score on you", statistics like faceoff % in a vacuum are absolutely meaningless. A C who loses every single faceoff but is extremely effective at getting the puck back and moving it up the ice is far more valuable than a C who wins every faceoff but promptly loses the puck and gets hemmed in his own zone.

Now that you acknowledge that Malhotra's faceoff % was significant let me blow your mind.

Malhotra's faceoff % with us that one year, which absolutely made a difference, was 60%. 60% IS HUGE.

Guess what Beagle's faceoff % was last year?

58.5%.

I'm going to let that sink in.

58.5% is an INCREDIBLE faceoff %. He's like another Malhotra which you now have to admit was a good signing. Boom.

Are you joking? Did you just ignore the rest of the post after "faceoff"? The post was entirely about pointing out that faceoffs in a vacuum are meaningless and you have to take the other qualities of the player into account. Actually based on the last sentence I'm sure you're not being sincere, and the rest of your post history doesn't do much to change that opinion.

Malhotra career PPG = 0.30

Beagle career PPG = 0.25

Wow Malhotra was only 20% more effective, you've convinced me. Oh just quickly, at what rate did both of these players get scored against at and were their matchups equally difficult?

 

[Motte and Bailey]

That's my point though. There seems to be a huge misunderstanding with certain posters on this board about the objective of hockey. Score more goals than your opponent. The wider your margin of outscoring in terms of goals and % is one of the things that determines, along with how "streaky" a player is, what the variance is. Then they understand that there are multiple things that go into outscoring your opponent.

It's like the Sutter vs Bonino thing all over again. Sutter is better in his own zone, Bonino scores more points and just isn't in his zone as often. If you aren't in your zone, you aren't getting scored on. If Gaunce is on the ice for 5GF and 0GA and Granlund is on the ice for 10GF and 5GA they are pretty much equally effective with Gaunce having lower volatility in his play to defend a lead. Obviously there are other factors such as entertainment value, which is a very real thing as I'd rather watch a trash but exciting Canuck team than a mediocre/above average but boring Canuck team, but the effectiveness is at least somewhat equal.

So when it comes down to "do you score more than your opponents score on you", statistics like faceoff % in a vacuum are absolutely meaningless. A C who loses every single faceoff but is extremely effective at getting the puck back and moving it up the ice is far more valuable than a C who wins every faceoff but promptly loses the puck and gets hemmed in his own zone.



Are you joking? Did you just ignore the rest of the post after "faceoff"? The post was entirely about pointing out that faceoffs in a vacuum are meaningless and you have to take the other qualities of the player into account. Actually based on the last sentence I'm sure you're not being sincere, and the rest of your post history doesn't do much to change that opinion.



Wow Malhotra was only 20% more effective, you've convinced me. Oh just quickly, at what rate did both of these players get scored against at and were their matchups equally difficult?

You’re kidding me right? I’m supposed to agree that a ~25 point guy is WAY better than a ~20 point guy because of those 5 extra points a year? That’s one good game for Petey who is the one relied on to score points not Beagle and Malhotra.

Face offs are very important. Vacuum? What does that even mean the game isn’t played in a vacuum.

 

[Intangibos]

You’re kidding me right? I’m supposed to agree that a ~25 point guy is WAY better than a ~20 point guy because of those 5 extra points a year? That’s one good game for Petey who is the one relied on to score points not Beagle and Malhotra.

Face offs are very important. Vacuum? What does that even mean the game isn’t played in a vacuum.

Vacuum means the statistic on its own isn't very meaningful. A one dimensional player who puts up 40 points is very very different than an elite defensive player who puts up 40 points. That's why the "point" stat is somewhat meaningless in a vacuum. Do you understand?

This is why I asked about other things such as the rate Malhotra got scored against at compared to Beagle as well as their matchups. Kassian put up a higher ppg rate in his final year here than Beagle does, does this mean Kassian is a better player?

 

[DFAC]

"We're missing 3 of our top 5 guys on the PP. It's not just your first unit it's our 2nd unit; it's a trickle-down effect. Our guys are trying. There's no secret sauce you can find and magically get PP goals. I'd like to get more PP time." - Green

He's not wrong. Our PP looks toothless without Edler, Boeser and Baertschi.

Also not sure on the Gaudette in front of the net experiment??

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Vacuum means the statistic on its own isn't very meaningful. A one dimensional player who puts up 40 points is very very different than an elite defensive player who puts up 40 points. That's why the "point" stat is somewhat meaningless in a vacuum. Do you understand?

This is why I asked about other things such as the rate Malhotra got scored against at compared to Beagle as well as their matchups. Kassian put up a higher ppg rate in his final year here than Beagle does, does this mean Kassian is a better player?

I don’t think points are meaningless in a vacuum the way you describe it. Neither are face offs. They’re just not the only important thing which I agree with. Doesn’t make them unimportant.

Malhotra’s bread and butter was PK and face offs. That’s Beagle’s bread and butter too. They’re similar in a lot of ways, what’s the issue here?

 

[Intangibos]

I don’t think points are meaningless in a vacuum the way you describe it. Neither are face offs. They’re just not the only important thing which I agree with. Doesn’t make them unimportant.

Malhotra’s bread and butter was PK and face offs. That’s Beagle’s bread and butter too. They’re similar in a lot of ways, what’s the issue here?

Just because something is meaningless in a vacuum doesn't mean they're not important. They're an indicator. It's very unlikely an 80 pt player is a bad player, like impossible bad, but there are no doubt 65 point players who are more valuable because of their other qualities. If points were all that mattered you wouldn't have those "tweeners" you see in the NHL as you would just have a merged range of players to fit as many points per game as you can on a roster.

I never argued what Beagle's bread and butter is. I specifically asked who has a higher butter-to-bread ratio. Malhotra was extremely effective on the penalty kill and at not getting scored on. Who got scored on less and who faced tougher matchups both at even strength and on the penalty kill?

 

[Askel]

Canucks dominated the first with their forecheck. Unfortunately having 2 4th lines and having Horavt playing with 2 3:rd liners and Petterson playing with Goldy and Virtanen can't cover for the fact that half this forward line up can't score. This Canuck team has no offensive depth. I would probably call up Gagner since we know that he can score on NHL PP, this team needs goals in the worst way.

 

[PG Canuck]

Goldobin, Pouliot, Granlund aren't even NHL players. They might win a Calder Cup, but they'll never win a Stanley Cup, so they'll never play on my roster. Soft, weak, small, slow with little skill don't play on Cup winning teams.

These players aren’t going to make or break a Stanley Cup roster because they won’t be playing much. Every Cup team has a player or two where they just aren’t that good but somehow still play.

We aren’t competing for a Cup, so not sure why it’s such a big issue right now.

 

[PG Canuck]

Out of the Beagle-Roussel-Schaller trio of FA signings, I wasn't expecting to say I would like Schaller the least

I was because he’s the biggest tweener of them all.

 

[PG Canuck]

Tim Schaller getting 3x the league minimum salary is stunning.

It’s stunning he’s even in the NHL, whether he made league minimum or not. What does this guy even provide that Archibald/Gaunce can’t?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

It’s stunning he’s even in the NHL, whether he made league minimum or not. What does this guy even provide that Archibald/Gaunce can’t?

Maybe he can score..?..He scored 12 goals for the Bruins last year...probably the amount of goals that Gaunce/Archibald will have in their entire NHL careers combined......stunning......innit..?

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

At 6:13 of the first Pouliot literally passes it into EP40 skates from like 5 feet away and no one in between them.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Maybe he can score..?..He scored 12 goals for the Bruins last year...probably the amount of goals that Gaunce/Archibald will have in their entire NHL careers combined......stunning......innit..?

Thats pretty funny.

 

[Intangibos]

Maybe he can score..?..He scored 12 goals for the Bruins last year...probably the amount of goals that Gaunce/Archibald will have in their entire NHL careers combined......stunning......innit..?

Schaller - 0G 3A in 17GP (Many on the first line with Horvat)
Gaunce - 2G 1A in 3GP
Stunning innit?

Gaunce's small sample size is irrelevant as it's not even about pace over a full season.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Maybe Gaunce would have scored 15+ on Boston last year?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Schaller - 0G 3A in 17GP (Many on the first line with Horvat)
Gaunce - 2G 1A in 3GP
Stunning innit?

Gaunce's small sample size is irrelevant as it's not even about pace over a full season.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Maybe Gaunce would have scored 15+ on Boston last year?

How many games has Schaller played with Horvat..?

Gaunce is an AHL player...What do you and Punkmunchkin care anyway..You're both on team tank?

 

[Intangibos]

How many games has Schaller played with Horvat..?

More than Gaunce

Also it's still irrelevant. Unless you mean "maybe he can score" as in you're just hoping he has it in him he has not proven this year to be any better than Gaunce offensively. Are you going to say "maybe Eriksson is a 1st liner" as well because he used to be a 60pt player?

 

[tantalum]

why would a game thread be neutral? When one is actively watching trash player(s) that coaching and management keep on trotting onto the ice comments are going to be made. And the vice versa.

 

[Melvin]

It’s stunning he’s even in the NHL, whether he made league minimum or not. What does this guy even provide that Archibald/Gaunce can’t?

Thick new England accent.

 

[PG Canuck]

How many games has Schaller played with Horvat..?

Gaunce is an AHL player...What do you and Punkmunchkin care anyway..You're both on team tank?

So what does that make Schaller then?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

So what does that make Schaller then?

A player who scored 12 goals and 22 points last season..those are solid numbers for a 4th line player...Last season had 132 hits,59 shots,and forced 31 takeaways....and is on a fair two year deal.

Some posters just seem to have some obsession with Brendan Gaunce,for whatever reason...A player that 31 GM's in the league passed on.